american civil liberties union
American Civil Liberties Union
The American Civil Liberties Union is directly collaborating with the Mexican government, possibly to sue the U.S. government in furtherance of illegal activity. The Mexican government has a great deal of political power inside the U.S. and they use it to push their money-making agenda: sending people north to the U.S. in order to receive billions of dollars. Those billions help prop up their corrupt government and by sending people north they also get rid of those who might press for political reforms.
The ACLU is on the Mexican government's side, not on yours.
Now, of course, some of the things the ACLU does are commendable. However, their bad, illegal activity-enabling activities aren't on that short list. Needless to say, the media presents them as a mainstream organization and allows them to hide behind their anodyne name. The ACLU is very selective in which cases they choose to pursue. When it comes to immigration, almost every single case they've been involved in would further illegal immigration and assist those who profit from illegal activity such as the Mexican government and corrupt businesses.
One of the best ways to do something about them is to go to a public appearance by one of their representatives and ask these questions on video.
Laura W. Murphy of the ACLU writes :
Today, the ACLU joined with our allies in the nation’s capital to let federal lawmakers know that Arizona’s racial profiling law, S.B. 1070, is about much more than just the state of Arizona and its immigrants. It’s about how we see ourselves as a nation.
DHS makes Secure Communities nationwide, no opt-out (so far). Lofgren, ACLU, NAKASEC, FIRM, CHIRLA, ICIRR, MIRA, Frank Sharry, NIF outraged. - 08/08/11
From this comes some good news for a change:
The Department of Homeland Security notified 39 governors Friday that the fingerprint-sharing program did not need their approval to operate in their states, and said it had voided agreements they had signed to authorize their states' participation, according to a copy of the letter.
The Mexican government and 10 other countries  have filed amicus briefs in a lawsuit that seeks to block Georgia's new immigration law. As previously discussed, three of the far-left groups involved in the suit are directly linked to the Mexican government, making that country's direct involvement just the icing on the cake.
1. The Indiana law apparently seeks to criminalize cards similar to the Matricula Consular card. I haven't read Indiana's law, but if what the ACLU implies is correct, then Indiana made a mistake. Instead of criminalizing in one way or another the use of the card, they should have just prevented it from being used as official identification. Of course, the ACLU lies: MC cards are basically only of use by illegal aliens. They refer to "a visiting professor [using one of the cards to open] a bank account", when that's not what they're designed for. MC cards - an old Mexican card that had been rarely used before - were revived by the Mexican government to provide IDs for illegal aliens. (Now, perhaps the Indiana law is too broad and doesn't just cover bogus IDs designed for illegal aliens; in that case the authors of the law are to blame).
2. As always, the way to defeat the ACLU is to find a smart, experienced trial lawyer to engage them in debate on video with the goal of discrediting the ACLU to their likely supporters. The ACLU is serving the interests of foreign governments and crooked businesses, not of middle- or lower-class Americans. Driving that point home to their likely supporters would go a long way towards making them toxic and reducing their ability to file lawsuits against states trying to deal with illegal immigration.
3. In the above, don't expect the tea parties to be much of any help. None of them are capable of engaging even the least capable ACLU lawyer, in their two year history they've largely ignored the immigration issue, and their (real) leaders are on the wrong side. In fact, David Koch - a main stringpuller on the teaparties even if they don't know it - even joined with George Soros to give the ACLU millions of dollars. The money he gave them freed up resources that they now use to sue those who want to do something about illegal immigration.
4. Those involved with the case include many of those involved with the ACLU's suit against Utah: Omar Jadwat, Andre Segura, Cecillia Wang, Katherine Desormeau of the ACLU and Linton Joaquin, Karen Tumlin, and Shiu Ming Cheer of the NILC. Others are Lee Gelernt of the ACLU and Angela Adams of Lewis & Kappes, P.C. (Lewis Kappes).
 From aclu.org/immigrants-rights/
The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, the ACLU, the National Immigration Law Center (NILC) and the law firm of Lewis & Kappes, P.C. filed a class action lawsuit today challenging a discriminatory Indiana law inspired by Arizona’s notorious SB 1070. The lawsuit charges the law authorizes police to make warrantless arrests of individuals based on assumed immigration status and criminalizes the mere use or acceptance of the commonly used consular ID card. The groups charge that the law will lead to racial profiling and trample upon the rights of all Indiana residents.
“Indiana has created a law that not only tramples on the constitutional rights of Hoosiers, but also improperly involves Indiana in areas that are clearly of federal, not state, concerns,” said Ken Falk, legal director of the ACLU of Indiana.
Some state lawmakers oppose the extreme law, saying it will increase law enforcement costs and deter both employers and employees from coming to the state. Indiana University has also expressed concerns that the law will discourage enrollment and academic participation, noting that the institution hosts thousands of foreign national students, faculty members and visitors each school year.
“Indiana has unwisely chosen to follow down Arizona’s unconstitutional path,” said Andre Segura, staff attorney with the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project. “This law marginalizes entire communities by criminalizing commonly accepted forms of identification. The law also undermines our most cherished constitutional safeguards by putting Indiana residents at risk of unlawful warrantless arrests without any suspicion of wrongdoing, much less criminal activity.”
Immigration bills inspired by Arizona’s SB 1070 have been introduced across the country this legislative season, but Indiana is only the third state to pass the controversial legislation this year. The state becomes one of only four, along with Arizona, Utah and Georgia, to enact draconian state-based immigration laws. The ACLU, NILC and a coalition of civil rights groups filed lawsuits in Arizona and Utah. The most troubling provisions of SB 1070 have been blocked by a federal appellate court, and the Utah law has been blocked by the U.S. district court for the District of Utah, pending further review of the Utah district court.
The lawsuit charges that the Indiana law is unconstitutional in that it unlawfully interferes with federal power and authority over immigration matters in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution and authorizes unreasonable seizures and arrests in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
“By cutting off the use of secure foreign photo identification, the law has effectively denied foreign visitors, scholars and immigrants in general the ability to engage in important commercial activity,” said Linton Joaquin, general counsel of the National Immigration Law Center. “These secure forms of official identification, which can be used by a visiting professor to open a bank account or by a foreign national to provide proof of identification in a wide variety of settings, are vital to both immigrants and society. This provision, like the rest of the law, is misguided and will undoubtedly have unintended social and economic consequences.”
The lawsuit was filed today in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on behalf of three individual plaintiffs who would be subject to harassment or arrest under the law.
Attorneys on the case include Falk, Jan P. Mensz and Gavin M. Rose of ACLU of Indiana; Segura, Lee Gelernt, Omar C. Jadwat, Cecillia D. Wang and Katherine Desormeau of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project; Joaquin, Karen C. Tumlin and Shiu-Ming Cheer of NILC; and Angela D. Adams of Lewis & Kappes, P.C.
Additional information is available online at: www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights/urtiz-et-al-v-city-indianapolis
The complaint can be found at: www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights/urtiz-et-al-v-city-indianapolis-complaint
Supreme Court orders California to release >30,000 prisoners; how much overcrowding due to illegal immigration? (ACLU) - 05/23/11
The US Supreme Court has ordered the state of California to release at least 30,000 state prisoners in order to reduce overcrowding (link, excerpt at ). What you probably won't hear from many others is the role that massive immigration - especially of the illegal variety - has played in this matter.
According to a Public Policy Institute of California study, "[i]n 2005, there were 28,279 foreign born adults and 139,419 U.S.-born adults in California prisons". Not all of the former are illegal aliens; in fact, it appears that statistics on the numbers of illegal aliens in California prisons are kept under wraps (but if anyone has a valid cite, leave it in comments). However, most of those foreign born are likely to be low-skilled legal immigrants and a large number of them will be illegal aliens; few of that number are likely to be H1B engineers. And, all of that number could have been prevented from coming here in the first place. Note that Arnold Schwarzenegger put the number of illegal aliens in state prisons at 20,000 but it's not known where he got that number. The Government Accountability Office put the number of illegal aliens in California state prisons at about 27,000 in 2008 .
Reducing low-skilled immigration would have gone a long way towards reducing prison overcrowding, and without all that massive immigration we wouldn't have tens of thousands of prisoners set free to roam the streets of California.
California now has two weeks to produce a plan that would reduce its prison population by more than 33,000 inmates within two years. [Matthew Cate, secretary for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation] said the state could ask a federal three-judge panel for more time to reach the lower inmate number. He said Brown’s proposal to shift thousands of state prisoners to county jails would reduce the state’s prison population by about 30,000 inmates over the next four years.
So, while the outcome isn't clear, I might be wrong about tens of thousands of prisoners being released to roam the streets. In any case, we wouldn't have the problem in the first place without massive, especially illegal, immigration.
Also, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a friend of the court brief in the case and issues a triumphant press release at . As discussed at the last link, the ACLU is a very strong supporter of illegal immigration; they helped the state get into the current mess.
UPDATE 2: It's worth noting that Sonia Sotomayor was on the wrong side, and the ruling was 5-4. See the link for who's to blame for her making it to the Supreme Court.
"there are 20,000 illegal inmates [she means illegal aliens] that the federal government should be taking care of and they’re not. If they take over those 20 thousand illegal inmates, at least we’d be halfway to what the court has ordered."
And, from this:
Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, R-Hesperia, this week sent a "2010 invoice" for $885,039,426 to President Barack Obama asking him to pay up or take custody of 17,000 illegal immigrants from state prisons.
...Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein has also sought the reimbursement from the federal government through a reauthorization bill. It would provide $950 million for each of the fiscal years 2012 through 2015 to carry out the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (note: see SCAAP).
...In 2010, SCAAP doled out a roughly $400 million to 850 cities, counties and states, according to the Center for Immigration Studies, a nonpartisan research organization.
..."The state has spent over $885 million to house these inmates, but last year we got reimbursed only $88 million," Donnelly said. "That's less than 10 cents for every dollar spent."
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation holds in custody 16,829 inmates who are under U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement hold.
An additional 3,844 are under "potential" ICE hold - deemed possible illegal entrants who have not come into contact with Department of Homeland Security and have no record in the federal database.
 From the Los Angeles Times article:
[U.S. Supreme Court] Justices upheld an order from a three-judge panel in California that called for releasing 38,000 to 46,000 prisoners. Since then, the state has transferred about 9,000 state inmates to county jails. As a result, the total prison population is now about 32,000 more than the capacity limit set by the panel.
Justice (Anthony Kennedy), speaking for the majority, said California's prisons had "fallen short of minimum constitutional requirements" because of overcrowding. As many as 200 prisoners may live in gymnasium, he said, and as many as 54 prisoners share a single toilet.
Kennedy insisted that the state had no choice but to release more prisoners. The justices, however, agreed that California officials should be given more time to make the needed reductions.
In dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia called the ruling "staggering" and "absurd."
He said the high court had repeatedly overruled the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for ordering the release of individual prisoners. Now, he said, the majority were ordering the release of "46,000 happy-go-lucky felons." He added that "terrible things are sure to happen as a consequence of this outrageous order." Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with him.
In a separate dissent, Justice (Samuel Alito). and Chief Justice (John Roberts) said the ruling conflicted with a federal law intended to limit the power of federal judges to order a release of prisoners.
Note that their total for the number of state prisoners as of 2005 is almost 168,000, while the LAT says there are currently 142,000. Some of that may be due to shifting prisoners to local facilities, or it could be a matter of apples and oranges. In any case, the percentages are likely to be similar. As I said, it's difficult to find statistics on these matters.
 (added later) Per the GAO (gao.gov/new.items/d11187.pdf):
[T]he total number of SCAAP illegal aliens incarcerated in California state prisons in fiscal year 2008 was about 27,000, which accounted for about 10 percent of all inmate days.
That might again be an apples and oranges number, but it's the closest I've found to a definitive cite.
The American Civil Liberties Union and the National Immigration Law Center today filed a suit against Utah over that state's new Arizona-style immigration law House Bill 497. Utah governor Gary Herbert signed that bill at the same time as he signed their guest workers bill.
Excerpts from an April 21 article in which ACLU attorney Cecillia Wang telegraphed the suit are at .
As for what you can do about this:
* Recall that David Koch of the Koch family joined with George Soros to give the ACLU $10 million to fight the Patriot Act. Without Koch's money, the ACLU might not have the resources to get involved in as many immigration lawsuits. Remind the many right wing commentators who are linked to the Kochs of that fact, and perhaps try to shame them into forcefully opposing the ACLU's suit.
* To their credit, the tea parties group in Utah led by David Kirkham did oppose the guest workers bill. However, their signs and banners simply aren't a match for the ACLU's and NILC's smart lawyers. Therefore:
* The most effective thing anyone can do or support in this case is to find a smart, experienced trial lawyer and have him or her "cross-examine" ACLU representatives on video with the intent of completely discrediting them to their supporters. See the question authority page for an action plan, and here are some questions for the ACLU. The goal is to make them toxic, so that they won't get popular support or support from any mainstream figures. If they do get support from mainstream figures (politicians, religious leaders, commentators, etc.), then work to discredit those people too. The ACLU depends on a certain base of mainstream support; cut them off from it. For example, if a religious leader supports the ACLU suit, and you can find or engender that leader engaging in false compassion, use the points on that page to discredit them to their congregation.
ADDED: Here's the press release. Note that another major group involved is the Service Employees International Union, and a smaller group is the Utah Coalition of La Raza. The latter is an affiliate of the National Council of La Raza . One thing you can do is point out that they have "The Race" in their name and highlight their ethnocentrism. However, that has to be done the right way; see the note at the end of the last link.
Another group involved is the Coalition of Utah Progressives, which appears to be as small as you'd think. Their co-founder is Mike Picardi (owns an upholstery business: linkedin.com/pub/mike-picardi/11/5b0/528) and a quote source is Peggy Wilson.
They also provide a good opportunity to help discredit those involved. Their mission statement is the highly ironic "To Protect The Unprotected" (thecoalitionofutahprogressives.org).
It's highly ironic because the people CUP is attacking include those American workers who are negatively impacted by massive and illegal immigration. Meanwhile, the people CUP seeks to protect (illegal aliens) are a very protected class. And, CUP is siding with the corrupt establishment - including major banks and businesses - against the great majority of Americans.
Make the points on illegal aliens powerless to CUP with the goal of discrediting them *to their potential supporters* and with the goal of making those potential supporters see them as frauds.
 From this:
Seeking support from a community forum at Grace Episcopal Church, [Cecillia Wang] said House Bill 497 - which requires law enforcement to verify the immigration status of anyone suspected of a felony and gross misdemeanor - is unconstitutional and would undoubtedly result in racial profiling.
"It creates a dangerous situation for all of us, regardless of race," she said. "It creates a society where police can demand to see your papers."
Since the law stipulates officers look into immigration status of suspects based on reasonable suspicion, Wang said the inevitable result would be racial profiling. If the suspect fails to provide identification, or if police believe the identification is fraudulent, Wang said they could be detained.
"The law is requiring good-intentioned police officers and not-so-good-intentioned police officers to equally go out and profile people based on the way they look," she said.
Wang added she's already filed lawsuits in Arizona in response to a similar bill and was looking for Utahns who have experienced forms of discrimination.
"We need brave people to step forward as plaintiffs," she said. "Speaking out can make a difference."
Billionaire David Koch (see Koch family) joined with George Soros, the Ford Foundation, and the Rockefeller Foundation to each give the American Civil Liberties Union $10 million to fight the PATRIOT Act . Reasonable people can disagree on the PATRIOT Act, but fighting it or trying to reform it was probably the correct thing to do.
Whatever the merits of opposing the PATRIOT Act, giving money to the ACLU is never the correct thing to do.
The ACLU is a far-left group that strongly supports and enables illegal immigration and that's even collaborating with the Mexican government in furtherance of illegal activity. Giving the ACLU money to fight the PATRIOT Act frees up resources for other areas, such as litigation designed to enable illegal immigration. Reasonable people can disagree with various other issues the ACLU involves themselves in, but there really should be no debate about them joining with a foreign government in order to enable illegal activity inside the U.S.
And, it's not like David Koch didn't have other options: there are groups like the ACLU on his side of the fence. Instead, he gave money to a far-left group that's collaborating with the Mexican government, joining with Soros, the Ford Foundation, and the Rockefellers. Someone has to fill the gap left by David Gelbaum, right?
That links to the undated lasocialdiary.com/node/125921 which says:
I think [David Koch has] committed more than $440 million to various philanthropies and projects asides from high culture. He’s politically conservative. He and his brother Charles, along with George Soros, the Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation each contributed $10 million to the ACLU to defeat parts of the USA Patriot Act.
That's undated but it also says "Last Tuesday night the New York City Ballet launched its 2008-2009 season".
Gillespie's post also links to a post at "Faces of Philanthropy" (facesofphilanthropy.com/david-h-koch; their site is down at post time) dated April 1, 2010 containing this:
David Koch has remained an advocate of libertarian ideology of minimizing government role and maximizing private involvement in the economy. He has contributed hefty sums to Cato Institute, Citizens for a Sound Economy, and the Institute for Justice, the Reason Foundation, the Heartland Institute, the Libertarian Party, the Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, and the George Mason University.
* David Koch has also contributed to the development of the arts and communications. He pledged over $100 million for the renovation of the New York State Theater. He is also one of the biggest corporate donors for the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) show Nova.
* David Koch has also contributed $10 million to the ACLU in relation to crushing Parts 15, 16 and 17 of the US Patriot Act.
Author Paul Kengor has uncovered several documents in the Soviet archives showing that, in the 1930s, the American Civil Liberties Union was not at all unfriendly towards Stalin. From :
Kengor found a May 23, 1931 letter in the archives signed by ACLU founder Roger Baldwin, written on ACLU stationery, to then American Communist Party Chairman William Z. Foster asking him to help ACLU Chairman Harry Ward with his then-upcoming trip to Stalin’s Russia.
Illegal aliens can get in-state college tuition, California Supreme Court says (ACLU, MALDEF) - 11/16/10
Yesterday the California Supreme Court ruled  that illegal aliens and others can receive the in-state tuition rate at California colleges provided that they've attended California high schools for three or more years. They thus upheld AB 540, also known as the "California DREAM Act".
Both of those are anti-American bills that allow illegal aliens to take college educations away from U.S. citizens. They're bad policy for other reasons too: they encourage illegal immigration and braindrain foreign countries. See the last link for the details.
All of this could have been prevented if people would do things in smart ways and use leverage. The only reason why there's an AB540 and a DREAM Act is because politicians feel free to support such anti-American bills. The way to get all (or all but the extremists) to drop support for such bills is to challenge them on video at their public appearances with the impacts of those bills; see the question at the last link. I've been trying to get people to ask that question for over three years with no help from major rightwing bloggers and the like. Instead, they simply encourage the tea parties types to wave signs and throw tantrums about less popular and less salient issues.
Regarding the suit, the attorney for the plaintiffs Kris Kobach says he'll appeal the decision. On the other side, the American Civil Liberties Union, MALDEF, and school administrators cheered the decision. (quotes to follow)
 From courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S167791.PDF
The main legal issue is this: [8 U.S.C. S 1623, link] provides that an alien not lawfully present in this country shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a state for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of this country is eligible for that benefit. In general, nonresidents of California who attend the state?s colleges and universities must pay nonresident tuition. (Ed. Code, S 68050.) But section 68130.5, subdivision (a), exempts from this requirement students — including those not lawfully in this country — who meet certain requirements, primarily that they have attended high school in California for at least three years. The question is whether this exemption is based on residence within California in violation of section 1623.
Because the exemption is given to all who have attended high school in California for at least three years (and meet the other requirements), and not all who have done so qualify as California residents for purposes of in-state tuition, and further because not all unlawful aliens who would qualify as residents but for their unlawful status are eligible for the exemption, we conclude the exemption is not based on residence in California. Rather, it is based on other criteria. Accordingly, section 68130.5 does not violate section 1623.
In Geneva today the United Nations Human Rights Council met to assess the U.S.'s record on human rights, or at least human rights as they see them. And, as previously discussed, the report from the U.S. government mentions Arizona's recent SB1070 immigration law. While I downplayed the significance of this in the earlier post, perhaps I should raise the alert level given that one of the groups involved in complaining to the U.N. about the U.S. is the American Civil Liberties Union; more on them below.
The United States is submitting its human rights record to the scrutiny of other nations - both allies and adversaries - for the first time, as the Obama administration opens itself up to a committee shunned by his predecessor... The 30-strong delegation, headed by three top State Department officials and including representatives from many departments, including Justice, Defense and Homeland Security, arrives in Geneva with a 20-page report compiled with the input of civic and social organizations.
The ACLU's report  oddly enough doesn't mention Arizona; the two immigration topics they focus on are Stipulated Removal (specifically mentioning Postville) and the ability of illegal aliens to sue over workplace issues (Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB). To read their summary, they must think they live in Libya rather than what they're actually doing: helping countries like Libya.
Even if their report doesn't mention Arizona, Alessandra Soler Meetze of the Arizona ACLU is in Geneva, and she promises she'll bring up the topic of SB1070 . She's being accompanied by day laborers center operator Salvador Reza .
 Download it from
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down the Hazleton immigration ordinance. That ordinance sought to prevent housing rentals to illegal aliens and to take away the business licenses of companies that employ illegal aliens.
Per chief Judge Theodore McKee:
"It is ... not our job to sit in judgment of whether state and local frustration about federal immigration policy is warranted. We are, however, required to intervene when states and localities directly undermine the federal objectives embodied in statutes enacted by Congress."
"This is a major defeat for the misguided, divisive and expensive anti-immigrant strategy that Hazleton has tried to export to the rest of the country."
If you like it better when the ACLU loses, help me oppose illegal immigration in smart ways.
Voting is definitely something you need to do, and we do need legislative attempts like that in Hazleton or in Arizona because some times they work.
However, much easier ways to oppose illegal immigration are at the link. Those who support or enable illegal immigration are extremely vulnerable to being discredited, and that would reduce their ability to push their agenda. The problem is that few others realize that and engage in things that aren't as effective such as street protests or just ranting in echo chambers. If you want to reduce the ACLU's power, you have to get out there and show their supporters how they're wrong.
UPDATE: Hazleton mayor and congressional candidate Lou Barletta says he'll take the case to the Supreme Court.
Per this biased Associated Press article, Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona helped deport more than 26,000 illegal aliens under the 287g program. That's of course without that state's new immigration law, which is set to take effect tomorrow. Maricopa was responsible for about one-quarter of all those deported under 287g (115,841 total); 64 local agencies are part of the 287g program.
The Los Angeles County's Sheriff's Office, a distant second to Maricopa, helped find 13,784 immigrants who were later deported or left the country. The Sheriff's Office's agreement with the federal government allows it to check its jails for deportable immigrants, but not to enforce immigration laws during street patrols. A renewal of the agreement is under negotiation.
An estimated 10.8 million people, about 26 percent of the state's population, are living illegally in California, compared with 460,000, about 12 percent, in Arizona.
"These statistics bear out that you have rogue sheriffs in certain counties that are bent on targeting immigrants," Lin said.
Obviously, the AP's statistics are wrong, rendering Lin's concerns even more questionable than they would be with the correct statistics. And, what she refers to as "rogue" is simply effective immigration enforcement rather than what the ACLU would prefer: little or no enforcement at all.
Group circulates list of 1300 supposed illegal aliens in Utah, a problematic, counter-productive waste of time - 07/13/10
An anonymous group [note: using the name Concerned Citizens of the United States] says it quietly watched Hispanics in their neighborhoods, schools, churches and "public welfare buildings" to compile a list of 1,300 people it says are illegal immigrants living in Utah. The group sent the list to law enforcement agencies and news media demanding that those named "be deported immediately." ...It is not known who produced the list, although Gov. Gary Herbert has called for an investigation to see if the list was compiled by someone with access to state databases containing personal information. The list contains birthdates, workplaces, addresses, phone numbers and social security numbers. Names of children are included. Several pregnant women have their exact due dates listed. All the names seem to be Hispanic.
1. This is highly counter-productive because it puts illegal aliens in the position where their advocates want them: as teary victims of racist oppressors.
2. Not all of those on the list might be here illegally; this raises the specter of other lists that have been used throughout history.
3. No one should expect officials to start deporting people just because they're on the list; in fact, the opposite might happen with politicians rushing to their defense.
4. It'd be surprising if they got all the information on the list legally, and state officials aren't going to give them a pass where they would give a pass in the opposite situation.
5. All the time spent on the list could have been spent on legitimate and highly-effective plans like question authority.
UPDATE: From this:
on Friday morning [July 16], Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff stood side-by-side with Paul Mero, of the Sutherland Institute, Catholic Bishop John Wester, state Sen. Ruz Robles, and representatives of the National Council of La Raza and the National Immigration Forum.
This site tries to discredit the last two groups; those who leaked the list helped them. Some of the fault of this lies with various political leaders; instead of promoting plans like question authority, they promote ineffective or low-wattage activities.
7/31/10 UPDATE: "The List" continues to help far-left supporters of illegal immigration. On Friday, 121 groups sent a letter to the Department of Homeland Security asking them to denounce the list and refuse to use it (link). Those behind the letter include the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Council of La Raza, Human Rights Watch, FamiliesUSA, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, and other religious groups.
Yesterday, the small town of Fremont in Nebraska passed a Hazleton-style ordinance designed to reduce illegal immigration. That town - population 25,000 - has seen an influx of Hispanics - most likely illegal aliens from Mexico or Central America - to work in their meat packing plants. As it turns out, meat-packing used to be a fairly well-paid occupation, but over the past several years operators have tried to cut their costs by seeking a foreign, usually illegal, and exploitable labor force. A recent example is provided by Postville; the former head of the meatpacking company in that town was recently sentenced to 27 years in prison.
Now, if you've been living in a cave for a few decades, you might think that the far-left would support good, union jobs and would oppose illegal immigrants brought in basically as scab labor.
"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."
Ms. Miller is in effect helping those corrupt plant operators who want cheap, exploitable labor. And, she's in effect helping drive down American wages. If you'd like to do a good turn, go to one of her public appearances and ask her about what she's helping do. She might say there are other reasons for the proposed lawsuit, in which case ask her what exactly she's doing to stem future illegal immigration. Most likely she won't have an answer. Whatever she says, upload it to Youtube so the rest of the country can see what the ACLU is actually supporting.
You can start by reading to her the letter here. The ACLU is incredibly easy to discredit and to reveal for what they are. So, get out there and do it.
The Mexican government is now taking legal action against the new Arizona immigration law, filing a brief in support of "Friendly House", the suit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU is also directly collaborating with that government on a related matter; whether this comes as a surprise to them or whether they helped bring it about isn't known. However, it puts the ACLU and other far-left groups, the Mexican government, and the Obama administration all on the same page. From this:
A 28-page amicus curiae brief filed in U.S. District Court says that Mexico has a "substantial and compelling interest" in seeing its diplomatic relations with the U.S. not be "frustrated by the actions of individual U.S. states" and in "ensuring that its citizens are accorded human and civil rights" while they are in the U.S... The brief asks the court to declare SB 1070 "unconstitutional in its entirety."... The brief says SB 1070 raises issues "of great importance to the people of Mexico, including the almost twenty million Mexican workers, tourists and students lawfully admitted to the United States throughout 2009, those already present or who will similarly be admitted to the U.S in the future, and the countless millions affected by international trade, immigration policies and drug violence." ..."If S.B. 1070 takes effect, Mexican citizens will be afraid to visit Arizona for work or pleasure out of concern that they will be subject to unlawful police scrutiny and detention," says the brief.
If that's not bad enough, the brief contains this:
SB 1070 Derails Efforts Towards Comprehensive Immigration Reform
With over eleven million nationals in the U.S., Mexico has a significant interest in U.S. comprehensive immigration reform. The United States is equally interested in Mexico’s involvement. In fact, one of the five immigration principles of the Obama administration is to collaborate with Mexico .
This is a good opportunity to indeed highlight how much of the political establishment are collaborateurs. Whenever you mention the Arizona issue or the ACLU suit, point out that the ACLU, the Mexican government, and the Obama administration are all on the same page.
7/1/10 UPDATE: Mexico's request to have their brief considered has been granted (link).
Jan Brewer has signed a new bill that clarifies and modifies parts of the recently-signed immigration bill, with the intent of clarifying what it's intended to do and also to help avoid legal challenges (such as from the Mexican government-linked American Civil Liberties Union). Link to the new bill and excerpts are below. Per Brewer:
Taking into consideration questions and concerns that have been expressed about the SB1070 legislation I signed last week, today I signed HB 2162 which defines and clarifies even further the proper implementation and enforcement of the law. These changes specifically answer legal questions raised by some who expressed fears that the original law would somehow allow or lead to racial profiling. These new amendments make it crystal clear and undeniable that racial profiling is illegal, and will not be tolerated in Arizona.
Needless to say, the ACLU's quest to support illegal activity hasn't abated (link):
"It doesn't deter anything," said Dan Pochoda, legal director of the Arizona ACLU. "It's not a serious hurdle." ...Pochoda said that law enforcement officers -- under strong pressure to find and remove illegal immigrants -- could still identify people by race and then look for a minor infraction as an excuse to investigate them.
Any cop could do that now, anywhere, so hopefully a judge will consider any of his claims based on that to be bogus.
The new bill containing the amendments is here and contains among others (bolding and strikeouts as at the link):
Alessandra Soler Meetze lies about Arizona immigration law (ACLU of Arizona, +Dolores Huerta) - 04/29/10
Earlier today, the American Civil Liberties Union (national and Arizona branch), MALDEF, the National Immigration Law Center, Dolores Huerta, Richard Chavez (brother of Cesar Chavez), and Linda Ronstadt (?) held a news conference in Phoenix to protest the new Arizona immigration law and to announce that they'll be mounting a legal challenge (full press release here).
At the event, Alessandra Soler Meetze, Executive Director of the ACLU of Arizona lied about the law:
"This law will only make the rampant racial profiling of Latinos that is already going on in Arizona much worse... If this law were implemented, citizens would effectively have to carry 'their papers' at all times to avoid arrest. It is a low point in modern America when a state law requires police to demand documents from people on the street."
One would think that if there were such profiling that the Department of Justice would have been able to catch it. Yet, after their fishing expedition, they choose to go after Joe Arpaio for something unrelated to profiling. And, one wouldn't expect the assistant secretary for ICE to have defended Arpaio against claims that he profiles.
Further, citizens wouldn't have to carry their "papers" (a not-so-subtle breaking of Godwin's Law) all the time; native-born citizens won't raise "reasonable suspicion", and those who've gone through a long naturalization process will be able to describe that process and, even without "papers", prove that they're citizens. And, almost all of those will have some reasonable form of ID on them, such as a driver's license. And, in order to be asked they've have to have "lawful contact" and then raise "reasonable suspicion" and even after that the cop still has leeway: they don't have to ask if it's "[im]practicable" or would impede an investigation.
The last line is just as deceptive as the rest: the state law does not "require police to demand documents from people on the street." As stated above, you first need "lawful contact" and then "reasonable suspicion", and after all that the cop has leeway.
If Alessandra Soler Meetze has to lie about that, can you trust the lawsuit she wants to bring or her other statements?
Note also the short video from the event (peekURL.com/vz3vdr2) where Huerta says, referring to MALDEF and others fighting Proposition 187, "after they filed that lawsuit [against 187], a million Latinos became citizens". The audience cheers, and those in the audience raise their fists. Needless to say, that's just the latest in a barely-concealed desire by many Hispanic leaders not to do what's best for the U.S. but simply to amass race-based power.
State and local police officers who enforce federal immigration laws are not adequately screened, trained or supervised, and the civil rights of the immigrants they deal with are not consistently protected, according to a report released Friday by the Department of Homeland Security inspector general.
The report by the department’s internal watchdog was a sweeping review of a program run by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Through agreements signed with about 60 county and state police forces, the program allows local officers to question immigrants about their legal status and detain them for deportation.
The inspector general’s report describes the program as haphazardly administered, with local agencies detaining and prosecuting immigrants with little oversight from federal agents and significant inconsistencies from place to place.
You can read the report - and the entirely predictable responses from the American Civil Liberties Union, the Immigration Policy Center, and the National Immigration Law Center - at blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/04/dhs-report-slams-287g-program.html
Since taking office, the Obama administration has consistently undermined immigration enforcement. An DHS inspector general report focused on 287(g) is the latest attempt to provide critics of 287(g) with ammunition to halt or eliminate the program. Among the report recommendations include more "civil-right" data recording and changing "performance measures that do not focus on aliens who pose a threat to public safety or are a danger to the community." In essence, the IG report is critical of ICE for not moving fast enough to implement the revised 287(g) guidelines that put "catch-and-release" back in place for non-violent criminal aliens. The legislative history and original intent of the 287(g) program is clear - it was meant to encompass all illegal aliens, and that was how the program was run until the Obama administration. Since then, the administration has attempted to remake the program into a watered-down jail screening program and to reduce its effectiveness at finding and deporting illegal aliens regardless of the severity of their crimes.
ACLU of Georgia's highly flawed racial profiling report based only on anecdotes; dedicated to promoters of anti-American bill - 03/25/10
1. Despite admitting that they have no data that would back up any claims of profiling , they convict the sheriff's office anyway.
2. Lacking any hard data on possible profiling in that county, all they do is print ten anecdotes. All but one are from those who didn't want their names used; the only one with a name attached is based on something she witnessed. As far as I can determine, there's nothing in their report providing any independent corroboration that their anonymous sources are telling the truth is provided. There appears to be nothing indicating that they interviewed additional, possibly impartial witnesses. There appears to be nothing indicating that the interviewed police officers or officials of some kind about the alleged incidents. One would have to take the word of the ACLU taking the word of self-interested parties to believe what's in the report. Is anyone outside the far-left willing to do that?
3. This is in the frontispiece:
Published March 2010, on occasion of the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. This report is dedicated to the Trail of DREAMS walkers who visited Georgia and Gwinnett County in March 2010 and inspired us with their courage.
That Day is a project of the United Nations and I'm going to guess that - as with their other programs - it has certain hidden surprises masked by a benign and laudatory name. And, the Trail walkers are supporters of the Dream Act, an anti-American bill that would take college educations away from lower-income U.S. citizens in order to give them to illegal aliens.
4. In a report about racial bias, they show their own biases:
Although complaints have come largely from Latino drivers, Gwinnett County also has large Asian and African immigrant populations, and it is likely that these communities are similarly victimized by this form of racial profiling.
Are working class whites also victims of profiling based on their race? Why isn't the ACLU concerned about that? Why do they assume that everything revolves around whites oppressing non-whites? (Answer: because they're very far-left).
[The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston] has upheld a lower court's ruling that a Rhode Island state trooper acted reasonably when he pulled over a van full of Guatemalan nationals in 2007.
The (the Rhode Island affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union in their suit against the state police) alleged that Trooper Thomas Chabot engaged in racial profiling and violated the civil rights of the van's occupants. The appeals court said Chabot had "qualified immunity" for his actions.
"I believe also that it has become clear that you, (attorney) Bill Strauss, (Phoenix Mayor) Phil Gordon, members of the Anti Defamation League . . . have a political agenda that you are trying to push with this... Your members and others have worked in concert with the Department of Justice in producing what amounts to large amounts of enflamed media that we have learned . . . is basically the only basis that the Department of Justice sent us this letter... ...Racial profiling is a state of mind... We can only deal with facts... I believe that the Obama administration has a political agenda that involves some form of either amnesty or something that does not comport or is not convenient to the current law... The high-profile nature of the sheriff has become a concern, and therefore we are dealing with this."
While there's certainly the possibility that those listed aren't loosely coordinating their actions and it would be difficult to find proof of them doing that, those groups listed are part of a general network that supports illegal immigration in various ways.
Arpaio deputies to get private training in enforcing immigration law; ACLU outraged (Kobach) - 02/10/10
According to this, all Maricopa County Sheriff's deputies will receive private training "on the authority of local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law". Previously, just 100 of their deputies had received training from the Department of Homeland Security, but the DHS dropped that last year. Law professor and candidate for Attorney General of Kansas Kris Kobach will be providing the training (with his costs self-funded or paid by an unknown group), causing a meltdown among the supporters of illegal activity:
Alessandra Soler Meetze, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, said Kobach is not qualified to offer the training... "He's a private individual, he's not a law-enforcement officer, he's not certified to represent the federal government or to train law enforcement officers on how to enforce immigration law," she said.
"I do not know what qualifies him to train law enforcement offices, he is not one of them."
"I am providing some legal expertise what the rules are according to the courts of the United States on questioning individuals," said Kobach via satellite Wednesday... The Sheriff's office will pay Kobach for his expertise from a fund of money seized from criminals. Sheriff Joe says the professor was only in Phoenix very briefly and made a video they'll use for training.
Silence has long shrouded the men and women who die in the nation’s immigration jails. For years, they went uncounted and unnamed in the public record. Even in 2008, when The New York Times obtained and published a federal government list of such deaths, few facts were available about who these people were and how they died.
But behind the scenes, it is now clear, the deaths had already generated thousands of pages of government documents, including scathing investigative reports that were kept under wraps, and a trail of confidential memos and BlackBerry messages that show officials working to stymie outside inquiry...
...Brian P. Hale, a spokesman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said in an interview that the newly disclosed records represented the past, and that the agency’s new leaders were committed to transparency and greater oversight, including prompt public disclosure and investigation of every death, and more attention to detainee care in a better-managed system.
Those documents were obtained by the NYT in collaboration with the American Civil Liberties Union, and it's a good thing that they uncovered the documents. While the individual situations are definitely tragic and reforms need to be enacted, it also has to be pointed out that a major investor in the NYT is Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, and the ACLU is directly collaborating with the Mexican government. Their goal - and the goal of many who will promote the NYT story - isn't simply to highlight government malfeasance in order to enact reforms. Their goal is to prevent as much immigration enforcement as possible.
According to this, Lydia Guzman of the group Respect Respeto is texting to a phone tree news about immigration sweeps that Sheriff Joe Arpaio is conducting in Maricopa County, Arizona. The texts are then broadcast to others in the tree:
Guzman said she sends the messages to a wide range of groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, Copwatch and various immigrant-rights groups such as Somos America and Puente. She concedes that some who receive the text messages likely use the information to avoid being caught and deported.
Per Arpaio: "This little group of people is (in favor of) open borders, and they don't like what I am doing. That is the bottom line... But it isn't interfering with our operations because every time we do it, we still arrest a good number of people, including illegal aliens."
Whether what she's doing is legal is open to debate; one ASU scholar says it might be illegal, and one from Vanderbilt says it's protected free speech. What would be interesting to find out is to what extent the ACLU is involved; who do they forward their texts to?
The following is from congressional testimony offered by the American Civil Liberties Union (more on them and questions for them at the link) on April 2, 2008 :
Recommendations: The ACLU urges that ICE:
* Halt entering into future (287g) agreements with states and localities;
* Cease recognition and compliance with 287(g) agreements currently in operation.
* Halt implementation of the Secure Communities plan which seeks to expand state and local law enforcement powers to enforce federal immigration laws.
ACLU-Mexico partnership calls for nearly open borders; "humanitarian crisis" they helped cause - 09/30/09
In April 2008, the San Diego chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union announced a collaboration with Mexico’s National Commission of Human Rights, a quasi-governmental agency. They've now released a report in which they - surprise - oppose border enforcement and call for what would amount to nearly open borders. The report is entitled "Humanitarian Crisis: Migrant Deaths at the U.S.-Mexico Border", but what they fail to note is the role that they and all others who oppose immigration enforcement have played in those deaths. If the ACLU and other far-left and racial power groups had supported our laws, there would have been many fewer deaths among those trying to cross our border; see the false compassion page for more. If anyone wants to do something about this issue, go to ACLU events and ask them these questions.
You can download their report (written by Maria Jimenez) from aclu.org/immigrants/gen/41186pub20091001.html These are their recommendations:
Action on Day One:
* Recognize border crossing deaths as an international humanitarian crisis.
Action within 100 days:
* Shift more U.S. Border Patrol resources to search and rescue.
* Direct government agencies to allow humanitarian organizations to do their work to save lives and recover remains.
* Establish a binational, one-stop resource for rescue and recovery calls.
* Convene all data collecting agencies to develop a uniform system.
* Commit to transparency.
* Elevate border deaths to a bilateral priority.
* Invite international involvement.
Action within One Year:
* Adopt sensible, humane immigration and border policies.
* Support nongovernmental humanitarian efforts at the border to do what governments are unable or unwilling to do.
Ultimately, effective border enforcement strategy requires acknowledging the necessity of good faith efforts to fix this problem, respect human rights, and preserve life. Most importantly, it necessitates exploring policy options that minimize forced migration and maximize choices for legal, safe avenues of migration. Only when both nations are seriously engaged in protecting the lives of their most vulnerable populations, will the right of state sovereignty be balanced with the fundamental rights inalienable to all people.
The ACLU solution basically consists of letting anyone who wants to come here cross the border in a safe legal orderly fashion, amounting if not to open borders then to something close to it.
And, if you know a lawyer in San Diego, let them know about this:
This report was funded in part by a Grant from the San Diego County Bar Foundation generously supported by a contribution from the San Diego County Bar Association Lawyer Referral and Information Service. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of the San Diego County Bar Foundation or the San Diego County Bar Association Lawyer Referral and Information Service.
UPDATE: Spencer Hsu of the Washington Post discusses the ACLU's report here. He, of course, fails to point out the role that the ACLU, the Mexican government, and the WaPo have played in encouraging people to try to cross the desert. Compare what Sarukhan says to what the ACLU says (and Bush said before):
Arturo Sarukhan, Mexican ambassador to the United States, called the deaths along the border "a matter of utmost concern," citing both countries' efforts to avoid fatalities and to "break the back" of human smuggling operations. However, he added in a written statement, "at the end of the day, a secure, orderly, legal and humane flow of migrants will be the only solution to this challenge."
David Hoffman, chief of the strategic planning, policy and analysis division of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, said Washington has taken many steps to reduce border deaths under a 1998 national border safety strategy, identifying dangerous areas with the Mexican government and adding rescue beacons in some areas.
"Every death is a tragedy," Hoffman said, adding that the Border Patrol has rescued nearly 11,000 illegal crossers in the past six years. "If there are shortfalls, if there are things we can do better, we are open to doing that," he said.
It's unfortunate that Hoffman didn't also take the opportunity to point to the partial culpability of those who work to prevent immigration enforcement.
UPDATE 2: There's a local news report at peekURL.com/v1iiqb5
Napolitano immigration meeting: you weren't represented (vast # of loose borders groups, Obama/Janet anti-287g) - 08/20/09
Earlier today, Janet Napolitano of the Department of Homeland Security held a closed-door meeting with a group of what she calls "stakeholders" (dhs.gov/ynews/releases/pr_1250792978709.shtm) but was actually a vast pantheon (see below) of far-left, racial power, corrupt business, and in general loose borders groups all of which want some form of comprehensive immigration reform, aka amnesty. There were at least 98 participants in the meeting, and none of them represent your interests or the interests of the great majority of American citizens. Why exactly they'd hold the meeting isn't clear; aside from guest workers and minor details they're all pretty much on the same page. Perhaps it was a strategy session to see how they could fool as many people as possible whenever they decide to push for amnesty.
The President said specifically that when it comes to the local police charged with enforcing federal immigration law under 287(g) agreements that he wants these local law enforcement agencies held accountable.
Noorani’s other question concerned the 287g program, which gives local law enforcement the authority to enforce immigration law. Noorani asked Napolitano to revoke the authority of agencies who have clearly violated the spirit of the agreement, and that the immigration reform community looked forward to seeing that happen. Napolitano responded, “Me, too.”
Other statements from those attending the meeting are here. Here's the intro to the DHS's press release:
"Today’s meeting on comprehensive immigration reform was an important opportunity to hear from stakeholders and build on the significant time I’ve spent on the Hill meeting with members of Congress on this critical subject. I look forward to working with President Obama, my colleagues in Congress and representatives from law enforcement, business, labor organizations, the interfaith community, advocacy groups and others as we work on this important issue.”
UPDATE: Griswold of CATO weighs in with a slab of Policy-As-Highschool (cato-at-liberty.org/2009/08/21/the-president-drops-by-to-tout-immigration-reform). After Napolitano gave her "opening remarks we broke up into smaller roundtable discussions of about 15 people each moderated by DHS officials". They then reconvened and Napolitano discussed what they'd learned. Then, Obama entered the building and made his speech "about 20 feet from where I was sitting". Griswold also refers to himself as a "small fish"; he's much too modest since he was some kind of inspiration for Bush's 2004 anti- and un-American guest workers plan.
And, there are so many groups that I've split the list into two parts. The religious, union, city/police, and miscellaneous groups are here. The following has the major groups, the business groups, and the single libertarian: