indiana: Page 1
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
Mitch Daniels is weak on Indiana immigration bill, apparently only supports least effective parts - 04/13/11
Indiana state Senator Mike Delph is trying to pass an Arizona-style immigration bill in that state . In an interview , Indiana governor Mitch Daniels opposes the part of the bill that would allow police to ask about someone's immigration status during a "lawful stop, detention, or arrest".
While it's not exactly clear what specific parts of the bill Daniels opposes and supports , he appears to oppose the other law enforcement-related parts of the bill. Those would allow police who have someone in custody to check their immigration status with the Department of Homeland Security. And, all of this takes place as Daniels is pondering running for president (link), even being urged to do so by Joe Klein (someone who explicitly supports illegal immigration).
The only part of the bill that he supports in the interview is that dealing with sanctions on those who knowingly hire illegal aliens. Yet, getting a conviction for that is a very high bar to clear and happens only rarely. Companies know how to play games: claim that the documents they were presented looked valid, or use subcontractors, or simply litigate the matter endlessly. Through August of 2006, there were just 177 convictions in the entire U.S. for knowingly hiring illegal aliens . Whatever the current number is, it can't be that high. Obviously, it should be higher and the Department of Homeland Security should be aggressively conducting sting operations and trying to catch big employers. But, neither the Obama administration nor Daniels would support that.
Daniels uses two excuses to oppose the law enforcement parts of the bill: it wouldn't make sense to turn illegal aliens over to the feds if "the feds were going to turn [illegal aliens picked up by local law enforcement] loose anyway" and his claim that he was told only a few local law enforcement officers have the necessary training to deal with immigration issues.
Both of those concerns are bogus: if the feds won't accept illegal aliens then Daniels can publicly call them out, urge Indiana's Congressional delegation to get more funding, and perhaps even see about charging the feds for detaining illegal aliens.
And, as of 2006, the feds were only charging $520 for a five-week 287g training program. As of 2007, that training program was only receiving funding of $5 million (Lou Dobbs report: peekURL.com/vnNVAuC ). If Daniels were serious and weren't simply trying to placate pro-illegal immigration groups and corrupt businesses, he'd call to raise that limit. Further, it doesn't take much training to send the personal information of someone in custody to the feds to be checked for immigration violations; see Secure Communities.
 A summary of the bill from the author is here. Note that it also has provisions relating to eVerify, sanctuary cities, Matricula Consular cards, and conducting meetings in English. Whether Daniels supports or opposes those isn't clear, but it's likely he opposes them because they wouldn't be "good for business" if you know what I mean.
 The interview is here:
"I think that legislation will be changed," Daniels said in a wide-ranging interview with The Indianapolis Star Editorial Board. "I support this, to drop the law enforcement provisions that have been the ones that have bothered most people."
Surviving in the bill, he said, would be provisions aimed at employers who knowingly hire people who have come to the United States illegally.
"The idea I like is to deny them the tax deduction if they're caught doing it," Daniels said. "It's a fairly clean way to get at it, and really employment is the magnet that leads to the illegality."
Sen. Mike Delph, the Carmel Republican who authored Senate Bill 590, said, though, that some law enforcement provisions will remain under the proposed amendments. Police could arrest someone based on their immigration status, he said, if there is probable cause to think the person already has been ordered to be removed or detained by federal officials, has been indicted or convicted of an aggravated felony or willfully failed to register with the federal government as required.
That, he said, would focus the bill "on the ones we consider to be the really bad actors."
...The problem with the bill's initial provisions, which allowed police to check someone's immigration status if they had reasonable suspicion that they were here illegally, is that "it wouldn't work," Daniels said.
"We don't tend to believe in things that are policies that are emotionally satisfying to somebody but don't have any practical effect."
Daniels said Indiana State Police and others in law enforcement told him that because of training requirements, only a handful of Indiana police would be able to deal with immigration issues.
"If they accidentally caught somebody who was breaking the immigration law, the feds were going to turn them loose anyway," he said.
Focusing on employment instead of law enforcement eliminates the concerns -- "valid or not" -- that the bill would lead to racial profiling and people being targeted because of how they look and sound...
 The author of the linked article, Mary Beth Schneider of the Indianapolis Star, didn't respond to the three tweets and one voicemail I sent her seeking specific information on what Daniels supports.
 See the table here. I was unable to locate more up to date statistics, but if anyone has them please leave a comment.
Current Indiana governor Mitch Daniels spoke at CPAC earlier today and gave a speech that's received rave reviews from such fellow worthies as Mary Katharine Ham of the Daily Caller (full text here). The speech concentrated on (no big surprise) spending rather than issues that are actually more important and more fundamental such as immigration. The speech didn't mention immigration at all. But it did include this incredibly ironic bit:
If a foreign power advanced an army to the border of our land, everyone in this room would drop everything and look for a way to help.
Yes, but which side would they be on, or would that depend on who made the better offer?
For years, Mexico has been advancing what amounts to a very soft invasion of the U.S., sending us their unwanted population in order to receive money in return. It's not an actual invasion and illegal aliens aren't foreign soldiers. However, millions of illegal aliens live in the U.S. against the wishes of the great majority of Americans. And, some regions do in fact resemble war zones, with foreign criminals in effect holding U.S. territory. At least Arizona is fed up and is fighting back.
And, that very soft invasion is aided by those who are various degrees of quislings, whether the active variety such as George W Bush or those who simply would ignore the issue and concentrate on other, less important topics like spending.
UPDATE: Earlier I referred to Daniels as Indiana's former governor. In fact, he's still governor of that fine state.
Indiana gov. Mitch Daniels on immigration: not good, but not enough information for full picture - 02/26/10
Indiana governor Mitch Daniels is being mentioned as a fiscal conservative, policy wonk Republican candidate for president in 2012. Like most "fiscal conservatives", he appears to support massive/illegal immigration despite the costs involved and despite how it gives even more power to those on the other side from him.
Also known as the March 10 Movement, March 10 Coalition, Diez de Marzo Committee.
Home page at movimiento10demarzo.org
At their site, they declare their unconditional support for Elvira Arellano as well as all other "immigrants" who are in the process of being deported. They also call on all those immigrants who are being deported to apply for asylum and to seek asylum in local churches.
They also oppose employer sanctions and programs to check the SSNs of employees.
Macquarie is an Australian conglomerate that has interests in U.S. toll roads, including one in Indiana that it co-owns with the Spanish conglomerate Cintra.
A group convened by the Migration Policy Institute in partnership with Manhattan Institute and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars which published "Immigration and America's Future:A New Chapter" ( link) in [[September, 2006]]. Supports a "new, secure Social Security card" (possibly a national ID card) and "path to legal status for unauthorized immigrants" (a massive amnesty for illegal aliens).
As of creation time, this is the list of those involved:
Who is the FDIC? And, why are they working with a foreign government to subvert our laws? - 09/20/04
The FDIC - "an independent agency of the federal government" - is working with the Mexican consulate in Chicago, banks, and community groups to give home loans to "immigrants." If they're legal immigrants, and thus American citizens (or on their way), why is a foreign government involved?
The article "NWI banks offer home loans to undocumented immigrants" (link) explains why: