“I’ve talked to a U-Haul dealer. He said business has never been better.”
State Senator Russell Pearce said, according to the Arizona Republic.
I’m still trying to figure this one out. It’s like the laziest defense I’ve ever seen. Did the Soviet government highlight the fact that there were less flies after Chernobyl? Is Pearce secretly in the pocket of some Illuminati-esque society of U-Haul truck renters? Did he not read anything about the damage to the Arizona economy––from hotel conference losses alone––that SB1070 has caused since its inception?
Not to mention the costs of keeping illegal immigrants in prisons, and, you know, Constitutional violations innate in the bill.
But at least, according to Pearce, they’re “leaving in caravans.”
I’ll be taking a break from my usual law stuff to do a post about St. Andrew’s Children’s Clinic, which took place last Thursday down in Nogales.
A volunteer looks into a patient's ear in the audiology trailer on Thursday.
The clinic, which goes on every first Thursday of each month except July, is a free clinic that provides healthcare for children in Mexico whose families can’t afford it or even obtain the necessary surgery in their country. Every October and April, students from BorderBeat attend the clinic to record it…and get that free carne asada.
The clinic’s staff is all volunteers and includes many professors from the U of A and doctors around the area.
I spent most of my time in the audiology trailer, where I watched clinic staff test children’s hearing. I thought audiology would be pretty mundane compared to orthotics or vision, but it was surprisingly emotional.
One of the issues with detecting deafness or hearing troubles early is that children simply can’t talk. They can’t tell you they can’t hear. You might think it would be obvious, but it’s really not. They’ll even sometimes respond to lips moving, so parents don’t even realize they’re not responding to hearing.
One girl came in and her mother said she didn’t respond to her talking…most of the time. She played with her siblings, but would gesture or yell when she wanted something. She was around a year old, so she should have been showing some sort of babbling, but there was nothing. When they tested her ears, the doctors found zero response. Zero. Nothing. Not even a hearing aid would help the girl; she would need a cochlear implant, which was practically impossible. In Mexico, most insurance won’t cover them.
But then on the opposite side of the emotional spectrum, one parent found out her son was misdiagnosed. He got his hearing tested after a seizure, and the abnormal brain activity threw off the test. Although the diagnosis said he had medium to severe hearing damage, both ears were almost perfect.
All in all, the clinic was great from both a journalistic and humanitarian point of view. I wish I could go back again to just help the kids out. If you can go, I’d highly encourage it.
Another year, another Immigration Week comes to an end.
This year’s showing was rather lackluster, I have to say. Sam and I were planning on covering the wall for BorderBeat, but it really was nothing more than a few pictures and graphs fastened to the wall; I expected booths, people, literature, everything. Luckily, the section on the Palestine-Israel wall had solid discussion and actual people, so we were able to put together a solid story on that.
Speaking of debate, many places that should have featured actual dialog were unfortunately lacking. Several groups put up “free speech boards” on the wall, but criticism was pretty much limited to “This wall sucks.” Thanks for the insight.
College Republicans caused quite a stir when they set up a memorial to fallen Border Patrol agents. I wasn’t able to see it, as it was taken down after a very short time, but apparently quite a few people protested the exhibit while it was up. I’ll be meeting with a representative of the group today, and a story will be appearing on BorderBeat this week.
Here’s the video Sam made for my piece on the Palestine-Israel section of the wall.
I’m back from spring break and somewhat proud of Arizona this morning, as the state recently rejected some rather draconian anti-immigration bills.
The worst of these bills would have been one that would not give citizenship status to children of illegals born in the United States, which would have directly challenged the Fourteenth Amendment. Even though I’m pretty sure it would have been quickly silenced by a judicial order, like the most heinous aspects of SB1070, it would have sent a pretty terrible message to, well, everyone: Arizona is not a state where the Constitution is honored.
The other bills would have made it a crime for illegal immigrants to drive in Arizona, banned illegals from attending universities and community colleges (currently they pay higher rates than residents), and would have evicted them from government housing.
Check out this older (but very good) interview about the Fourteenth Amendment from Arizona Public Media:
[Edit: I’m having problems embedding the video: click here to view it]
This all comes at the same time as Utah, and especially the LDS Church, has been distancing itself from Arizona’s legal mess. Utah, as I posted last time, passed an anti-immigration bill, but the bill is not nearly as comprehensive as 1070. The LDS Church was also very influential in this one, and for surprising reasons––people suspect them of trying to distance themselves from 1070’s author, Russell Pearce, a member of the church. The church “pushed for problem-solving at the federal level, discouraged the use of local law enforcement in profiling alleged ‘illegal immigrants,’ opposed the unnecessary separation of families, and urged a simultaneously ‘humane’ and ‘business-friendly’ approach to immigration,” according to Religion Dispatches.
All in all, times are weird for immigration law. Hopefully more states follow Utah’s model than Arizona’s, but we have yet to see.
SB1070 has been controversial from day one in Arizona. But now other states are joining the fray, concocting their own versions of the bill to apply to their own states.
In October, Immigration Works USA listed 25 states that might consider copycat legislation. The group ranked them according to how likely they were to pass bills, and it’s an interesting read to see where the support comes from. Rhode Island, for example, had a bill proposed by a Democratic governor––an oddity considering that most people link the bill with Republicans, especially those of the Tea Party. Virginia had a bill proposed on the local level by a county supervisor.
On Friday, Utah passed the Illegal Immigration Enforcement Act, which allows officers to ask about immigration status during routine checks, according to Feet in 2 Worlds. It’s important to note that this leaves out the most controversial part of 1070––allowing officers to stop people to ask about the status. Utah’s bill states that they have to stop them for something else, and only then can they ask about immigration status. In doing so, Utah will probably avoid scrutiny from the federal government.
The aforementioned Rhode Island was just the subject of a survey from Brown University, who discovered a surprisingly even split––54 percent of Rhode Islanders would support such a bill.
So far, according to Colorlines.com, 16 states have actually introduced legislation that mimics 1070. It will be interesting to follow the issue and see if the legislation takes hold; in some states, it already has.
So it’s finally happened. Arizona is countersuing the U.S. government over SB 1070.
It shouldn’t really come as a surprise, since the federal government sued Arizona on July 6, 2010–just over seven months ago. I guess the thing that I’m wondering is really what took them so long.
This whole thing is sort of playing out like a bad episode of Jerry Springer. After Arizona passed the bill on April 23 of last year, scheduling it to go into effect on July 29, the government sued and were able to get an injunction stopping the most controversial aspects.
Since then, it’s all been “he said, she said” in the media, with Obama denouncing the broad aspects of the bill and its potential to harass honest citizens. Brewer, has of course, consistently claimed that it’s Arizona’s reaction to weak border protection from the federal government.
With this countersuit, Brewer isn’t seeking a lump sum from the government–even though her predecessor apparently used to mail bills to the White House for border protection–she’s seeking a change in the way the border is patrolled, which would allow more funds to come to Arizona over a period of time to repay the costs of jailing those held because of SB 1070. Brewer also seeks more Border Patrol agents and better fences along the border.
Pima Sheriff Clarence Dupnik has been taking a lot of heat for some comments he made in the wake of the Giffords shooting, to say the least.
When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous. And unfortunately, Arizona I think has become sort of the capital. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry.
The kind of rhetoric that flows from people like Rush Limbaugh, in my judgment he is irresponsible, uses partial information, sometimes wrong information. [Limbaugh] attacks people, angers them against government, angers them against elected officials and that kind of behavior in my opinion is not without consequences.
Dupnik’s received negative press from the usual places–Limbaugh, naturally, took offense and “railed against him” on his show–but has also been the subject of a very unusual recall effort: one that started out of his jurisdiction.
Dan Baltes, executive director of Americans Against Immigration Amnesty (please click this), apparently took the most offense to Dupnik’s comments and began an effort to recall him from office. Never mind the fact that Baltes is a resident of Utah.
Now the Republican Party has jumped on board with their DumpSheriffDupnik.com site, even though they apparently said they wanted nothing to do with the recall effort initially.
William Sali, a former congressman from Idaho, has also joined the cause, agreeing to serve in “advisory capacity” to the campaign.
Want to know the important thing?
None of this matters.
Not a single one of these people will have a vote in the actual recall election, if it really does come to that (except the Pima County GOP, of course). That will be up to the citizens of Pima County, who have elected him eight times since 1980. That’s right. He has been the sheriff continuously since 1980. Pima County loves him. Or, at least, they like him enough to vote for him more than the other guy.
It will be interesting to see where this goes. In terms of professionalism, the recall site’s designed more poorly than this blog (you can’t even click on links…), and the GOP has only received $2,000 since they started their site. Baltes is certainly staying the course (through bad press in many Arizona media outlets), so we just have to wait and see if he can get the signatures required for the recall.
This recall effort is really interesting, though, for the reasons it has taken all the criticism. The man in charge of it is from Utah, and can’t even vote in the recall if it does come to a vote. It would be like Canadian citizens coming down into the U.S. and trying to get Obama impeached. It’s very unusual. Again, though, we’ll see how it pans out. Baltes claims to have 200 volunteers collecting signatures.
A lovely group of videos made the rounds on the internet last week. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg hired a team of private investigators to go to Arizona gun shows and purchase guns from independent vendors. The results of the study were pretty bad for Arizona, whose lax gun laws have been the subject of much contention, especially after the tragedy a few weeks ago.
Now, to understand the videos, you need a little info about gun purchases in Arizona. Every gun purchase from a dealer requires a background check. If you buy a gun at a gun show, you’re essentially completing a person-to-person deal and it doesn’t require a check. However, vendors can’t sell to someone whom they know couldn’t pass a background check.
Bloomberg’s investigators uncovered some shocking truth–gun show sellers just want to make money! But seriously, the investigators found that two (out of three, I think?) sellers really didn’t care if the person could pass a background check or not.
Bloomberg’s not hedging at all about why he chose Arizona. The investigations were conducted “two weeks after the tragic shooting in Tucson,” and investigators bought a gun “similar to the one used by Jared Loughner.”
It is important to note, however, that more stringent gun show laws would not have actually prevented the shooting. Loughner actually passed a background check. Bloomberg’s report notes:
Even though the U.S. Army had rejected Loughner after admitting to a history of drug abuse during his application to enlist, it failed to share this information with the FBI, as required by law. As a result, Loughner’s name was never entered into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), a database used to screen prohibited purchasers from buying guns. Less than a year later, Loughner was able to pass a background check and purchase a shotgun, and only one year after that, Loughner bought the Glock gun that he used in the Tucson shootings.
He basically slipped through the cracks. But I’m not saying new laws wouldn’t help–apparently the Columbine shooters bought their guns at a gun show, and Bloomberg’s site claims that 30% of illegally trafficked guns are connected to a gun show.
Bloomberg’s not really looking to make any friends with the way he conducted his investigations. Jan Brewer feels like her toes were stepped on, and rightfully so; keep in mind this is a mayor from a state completely across the country telling her how to run her state. But I think Bloomberg’s right. He’s not looking for Arizona to change, anyway; he’s looking for a federal solution that would supersede the lax state laws.
Frankly, I’m all for it. Brewer claimed that people regularly police gun shows, but with this year’s stats (and 2009’s track record of 19/30 breaking the law in Bloomberg’s same study in Nevada, Tennessee, and Ohio), it’s clear that something’s not working. And you can’t expect people to be trustworthy at gun shows–these videos pretty much prove it. We clearly need something a little more strict, since all you need to buy a gun now is an Arizona ID–and you can ask any college student how difficult it is to get one of those.
Anyway, weigh in on the comments.
Bloomberg’s site is here, and you can view the report or the rest of the videos. Alternatively, just go here for the Youtube channel.
Arizona has to deal with a whole bevy of issues that other states don’t. First, there’s the budget crisis, which Arizona has felt more deeply than many other states. Second, and most prominent, is the issue of the border. Arizona shares a huge 370-mile border with Mexico. That border brings both good and bad. On the good side, there is a thriving Mexican-American community in the state, and wonderful food can be had on pretty much every corner. On the other side, the state deals with huge drug problems (a 2003 Justice Department study showed that Arizona ranked 2nd (behind Texas, so take land mass into account) in terms of most illicit drugs seized) and rampant illegal immigration.
To deal with the latter problem, the Arizona State Senate set up the “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act,” otherwise (and more popularly) known as SB 1070. Among other things, the bill makes it a crime to hire illegal immigrants, charges heavy fines for trespassing, and, most controversially, allows any police officer to stop and demand the ID of anyone suspected of being an illegal immigrant. The fact sheet provided by the Senate is a great place to look.
HB 2281 was another controversial piece of legislation passed recently in Arizona, which prohibits classes that “advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.” This includes many ethnic studies classes and programs, especially a very successful program in Tucson––”La Raza.”
An incident involving the La Raza program was one of the catalysts that brought the bill onto the House floor. Margaret Dugan, a Latina Republican, spoke before Tucson Magnet School to refute the common thought that “Republicans hate Latinos,” something then-Superintendent of Public Instruction (now Attorney General) Tom Horne claimed the La Raza program taught its students. Many La Raza students booed Dugan, who finally walked out amid the uproar.
Obviously, Arizona has more legislation than these simple two bills dealing with border issues, but these two have been in the spotlight over the past few months, and I will most likely be covering the two of them.
Welcome to my blog! I assume you found me here through some search for border legislation or something. If not, turn back while you still can!
This blog is here as my outlet to contain news and my thoughts on border legislation in Arizona. I use the term “border” loosely, as I may cover anything from SB-1070 to the “La Raza” program in Tucson to legislation and posts about the wall.
So a little about me: I’m a senior (21 years old) at the University of Arizona, and currently in Dr. Rochlin’s BorderBeat class, in which I will write and produce content for BorderBeat, an online journal dedicated to all border-related issues. I’m from just outside Cincinnati, OH, but grew up all over the place. If you want to get in touch with me, IM me at borderbeatkevin(at)gmail.com. Or just leave a comment somewhere on here.
Torts & Courts Across Borders 