jan brewer: Page 1
Last year, the Department of Justice sued Arizona over that state's immigration law SB1070. Now, Arizona has returned the favor by countersuing the feds, making the obviously correct claim that the feds aren't enforcing our immigration laws as they should. Whether the countersuit will succeed isn't clear, but at the least it might help air just how derelict in their duties the Department of Homeland Security has been.
The lawsuit alleges that the federal government has failed in five areas:
* To achieve and maintain "operational control" of the border.
* To protect Arizona against "invasion."
* To enforce immigration laws.
* To uphold the 10th Amendment, which states that "powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution … are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
"What we’re seeking is to force the federal government to do its job,” Attorney General Tom Horne said, adding that the Obama Administration is “actively” not enforcing immigration law.
Horne said there have been similar cases filed out of other states over the years.
“We hope this one will be successful,” he said.
Video of the announcement is below. For an unknown reason one of those present was Kyrsten Sinema, who tried to throw cold water on the suit. She might have a point, especially about the "invasion" part. Updates when the Obama administration and legal observers weigh in.
In the election on Tuesday, I strongly urge you to vote against candidates who are part of the Tea Parties movement and against that movement in general. The teaparties are one of the most malignant political movements in the past several decades and must be repudiated; more on that below and see my extensive coverage at that link.
I'm also making these specific recommendations:
The United Food and Commercial Workers Union - UFCW - had been part of the movement to boycott Arizona over their new immigration law. They've now withdrawn from that movement (link), with a Local president saying:
"I hope Ms. Brewer joins the call to 'tone it down' and help create solutions for both border security and immigration reform... It is now time for calm, reasoned discussion that can move forward to first secure our borders, while designing a workable, humane plan to finally reform our nation’s immigration laws."
The "call to 'tone it down'" followed Jan Brewer pointing out that they were helping to hurt the state and her campaign starting to organize counter protests against the union. Her next target is the Service Employees International Union.
Rachel Maddow and others are implying an absurd claim: that Arizona governor Jan Brewer signed SB 1070 - that state's new immigration law - in part to profit Corrections Corporation of America. CCA has a contract with the Department of Homeland Security's ICE agency to provide immigration detention facilities, and two people linked to Brewer are also linked to CCA. For background from far-left illegal immigration supporters, see this and this; the Morgan Loew report from KPHO is here; Brewer's campaign manager responds here .
On the video at peekURL.com/v19y5iz (transcript here) Maddow states:
The uptick in anti-immigration stuff isn't really about immigration at all. It's about what makes good politics for anti-immigration  politicians. And, it is about what makes big profits, apparently, for some very well-connected people.
The claim that Brewer signed the law to profit CCA is absurd on its face. Under Maddow's scenario, Brewer and her advisors would have otherwise been opposed to signing the law, but lobbying and contributions by CCA would have changed their minds. Does that make sense? If there were no connection between her advisors and CCA, can anyone imagine her not signing the law? If CCA stood to benefit from her not signing the law, and that's what she did, Maddow's smear might be a bit more believable.
Maddow's smear might have legs if the bill in question were something more obscure and the signing of which was a bit odd. That's not the case here: SB 1070 was national news before Brewer signed the bill and the bill had already generated wide support across the nation.
Further, SB 1070 was originated by Russell Pearce, a "true believer" in curbing illegal immigration. He also originated a bill intended to prevent reconquista-style classes from being taught in the public schools, and Brewer signed that bill as well. Would Maddow like to claim that CCA stood to profit from that? How about the two dozen or so other states that are considering Arizona-style immigration bills; did CCA get to them too?
What Maddow gets right is that this is political: some politicians are waking up to the fact that a large majority of Americans oppose illegal immigration.
It's also political in an ironic way: the only reason Maddow is smearing Brewer is because the Democratic Party sees illegal immigration as a source of political power.
And, Maddow and others spreading this smear have almost zero likelihood of following the money on who profits from illegal immigration such as low-wage employers, banks, and countries. Rather than opposing exploitative companies and crooked banks, Maddow is in effect enabling them.
Now, the above doesn't mean that Brewer's advisors shouldn't take steps to avoid any appearance of impropriety and it doesn't mean that there aren't major issues with private prisons. It just means that - once again - you can't trust what Rachel Maddow tells you.
 Morgan Loew of KPHO interviews Caroline Isaacs of the American Friends Service Committee and uses her in the role of "the person who says the things the reporter would like to say". Loew only describes the AFSC as a group "which advocates for social justice issues". He doesn't reveal that they're far-left supporters of illegal immigration with an indirect link to the Mexican government.
 Maddow also misleads with her terminoloyg. There aren't too many "anti-immigration politicians"; there are very few politicians who oppose both illegal and legal immigration.
With scant hours to go before a controversial Arizona immigration law goes into effect, a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction Wednesday against the implementation of parts of the law.
U.S. District Judge Susan R. Bolton ruled that the federal government "is likely to succeed" in its challenge of the legality of one of the most controversial sections of the Arizona law.
That provision required police to "make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested" if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person is in the United States illegally.
The judge also put on hold parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places. In addition, the judge blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.
"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled.
If you oppose illegal immigration, you might be tempted to simply seethe, or rant and rave, or attend marches, or the like. That would certainly be good for those demagogues who'll be along shortly to complain about this ruling.
Meanwhile, I'm going to ask you to do things that are smart and highly effective and that can be used to actually resolve this problem. Please go right now see the simple things you can do to stop amnesty and reduce illegal immigration. Take a few minutes and read that page and find something you can do; the time requirements for some of those are minimal. Even if you can't do anything on that list, at the very least send the list to your friends and encourage them to get involved.
If you engage in useless activities - waving loopy signs, leaving the 1000th highly similar comment in online echo chambers, or all the rest - you'll be helping the bad guys win.
If you don't want to help the bad guys win, click the link above and either do one of those or at the least encourage your friends to get involved.
"This fight is far from over. In fact, it is just the beginning, and at the end of what is certain to be a long legal struggle, Arizona will prevail in its right to protect our citizens. I am deeply grateful for the overwhelmingly support we have received from across our nation in our efforts to defend against the failures of the federal government... I have consulted with my legal counsel about our next steps. We will take a close look at every single element Judge Bolton removed from the law, and we will soon file an expedited appeal at the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit... ...I will battle all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary, for the right to protect the citizens of Arizona. Meanwhile, I also know we still have work to do in confronting the fear-mongers, those dealing in hate and lies and economic boycotts that seek to do Arizona harm..."
UPDATE 2: Arizona wanted an expedited hearing, but the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals denied their request and the hearing is scheduled for the first week in November. Also, Brewer has indicated that she might be open to changing the law in some ways.
[IMPORTANT UPDATE BELOW]
Dana Milbank of the Washington Post offers "Headless bodies and other immigration tall tales in Arizona" (link) in which he misleads about some aspects of immigration crime in that state, even if he gets some things right. He also helps reveal problems that supporters of Arizona's new immigration law have; more on that below. And, of course, he illustrates again just how much disdain the Beltway establishment has for the concerns of those in border states.
I'll stipulate that Milbank is probably correct about Jan Brewer's claims about decapitations, however he cranks it up a notch by sarcastically asking whether "dark-skinned foreigners are now severing the heads of fair-haired Americans" when in fact many victims of crimes committed by smugglers would be "dark-skinned foreigners"; Milbank doesn't have much concern for the victims of such crimes, regardless of their skin color.
Border violence on the rise? Phoenix becoming the world's No. 2 kidnapping capital? Illegal immigrants responsible for most police killings? The majority of those crossing the border are drug mules? All wrong.
The first has already been discussed here; see that for how Milbank is misleading his readers. His claim that the second is wrong is based on an article by the non-credible Politifact ; they made their decision based not on statistics but on the fact that there's either an absence of statistics or not all kidnappings are reported. The last two he's probably correct on.
Then, Dana Milbank shows what little respect he has for immigration enforcement and immigration laws in general:
This matters, because it means the entire premise of the Arizona immigration law is a fallacy. Arizona officials say they've had to step in because federal officials aren't doing enough to stem increasing border violence. The scary claims of violence, in turn, explain why the American public supports the Arizona crackdown.
Whatever unspecified Arizona officials have said, there are plenty more reasons to reduce illegal immigration than simply border violence. There's also the fact that the Obama administration has in effect ceded control of part our territory to foreign criminals. And, even Milbank mentions the possibility that violent crime will spill over from Mexico into the U.S.; that's already happened in several instances but apparently he wants to wait until it gets worse and much harder to deal with before taking action. There's also the fact that Border Patrol agents have been discovered to have been in the pay of foreign criminals and the strong probability that local officials have also been compromised. And, of course, there's the impact of massive illegal immigration on our own high unemployment and the large amount of spending involved. Milbank delusionally thinks that if Arizona officials portrayed the border area in his corrupt, naive way then support for the law would drop.
Regarding the "mules" claim, Milbank says:
The Border Patrol's Tucson Sector has apprehended more than 170,000 undocumented immigrants since Oct. 1, but only about 1,100 drug prosecutions have been filed in Arizona in that time.
Shouldn't anyone who pretends to know anything about this issue realize that prosecutions don't necessarily reflect the number of actual crimes? See, for instance, this from March:
Two years ago, an understaffed U.S. Attorney's Office in Tucson would have likely declined such a case - the office had a 500-pound threshold for marijuana cases... Not anymore - the threshold is history... Thanks to an influx of funds from the Justice Department's initiative to fight border-related crime, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Tucson has nearly double the prosecutors it had three years ago. The office is prosecuting drug cases at a record clip - and going after people with smaller loads... The U.S. Attorney's Office in Tucson prosecuted 1,298 felony drug cases in 2009 - more than double the 521 prosecuted in 2008...
Even if "the threshold is history" there are only so many cases they can prosecute; if they had more funds they could no doubt increase it well above the 1,298. That doesn't mean that all illegal aliens are being used as "mules", just that Milbank is pawning off a misleading statistic.
The Milbank column, unfortunately, illustrates two major problems that supporters of the Arizona law have:
1. Those like Brewer need to bear in mind that everything they say will be picked apart by massive/illegal immigration supporters like Milbank and dozens of others who have a megaphone. They need to be very careful to only make statements that they can back up.
2. Many supporters of the law have donated to Arizona's legal defense fund, and some of the tea parties types have signed petitions in support of Arizona and so on. However, that's not enough. Things like the supposed low crime rates along the border are propaganda that those like Milbank use, yet few besides me are trying to strike against that propaganda and I didn't get any help that I know of with my discussion of the Associated Press article. If I had - if those trained in statistics had shown how the AP article is wrong - we might have prevented it being used not just by those like Milbank but also by Barack Obama. Simply standing around waving signs or signing petitions isn't enough: people also need to intellectually engage the other side and show how they're wrong. Unfortunately, the loudest opposition to the other side - the tea partiers and rightwing bloggers - are generally incapable of doing that.
UPDATE: So much for Milbank's conceit (link). Congressman Rob Bishop has confirmed that a beheading victim was found on an Arizona ranch in January and turned over to the Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office. One of Milbank's sources is the Arizona Guardian (link), the same source that earlier smeared Brewer over a misconstrued quote. They claim to have contacted the coroner in Santa Cruz County and claim to have been told that no such cases had been handled there. Please contact Milbank using this form with the link to the Examiner article and suggest that he be intellectually honest enough to look into this matter.
UPDATE 2: There's another anecdotal case linked from here. Other anecdotal cases are linked from here, and that site also points out that the Arizona Guardian only claims to have asked about "immigration-related" cases and not those related to drugs. Would the Guardian - which smeared Brewer as linked above - stoop even lower and deliberately only ask about one set of data when the other is equally important? If anyone calls the same counties in Arizona and has conflicting information please leave a comment.
When pressed to indicate if decapitated bodies had been found in Arizona, Senseman continued: "[Brewer is] referring, in general, to the increasing violence across the border."
Meanwhile, officials at six medical examiners' offices in Arizona -- Yuma, Pima, Santa Cruz, Cochise, Pinal and Maricopa -- confirmed that they had no records of decapitated bodies.
...[In the case in the first update above, the rancher] notified officials at the Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office, who went to the ranch and took possession of the head.
Dr. Bruce Parks, who serves as the chief medical examiner for Pima and Santa Cruz counties, confirmed to FoxNews.com that the head was identified through DNA testing as that of 43-year-old Francisco Fuentes Dominguez, who was not a U.S. citizen. Parks said a cause of death was not determined, but there was no evidence of decapitation. Other "badly decomposed" parts of Dominguez's body were found nearby earlier in the year, he said.
Earlier this month in an interview with TV reporter in Ecuador, Hillary Clinton stated that the Department of Justice will be challenging the new Arizona immigration law in court. I was a bit skeptical since she's not the DOJ and she might have been basing it on an assumption rather than knowledge.
Now a senior administration official tells CBS News that the federal government will indeed formally challenge the law when Justice Department lawyers are finished building the case. The official said Justice is still working on building the case.
Contacted about Clinton's comments today, State Department spokesman PJ Crowley said they reflected her beliefs.
"The Secretary was asked about the Arizona law during a TV interview in Ecuador," he said. "She believes that a better approach is comprehensive immigration reform, and said so. Regarding how far along the legal review is, that is a matter for the Department of Justice."
Despite the senior administration official's comments, an official at the Justice Department told CBS News today that the question of whether to sue is still under consideration.
This would be a political mistake. The Arizona law has wide support, and suing would reduce Obama's popularity even more than it is now, not to mention what it would do to the popularity of Democrats in Congress.
On the other hand, the Obama administration has to know that a good part of their opposition is incompetent. In the worst case scenario, the loudest opposition to the suit would consist of those in the tea parties movement, and the DOJ would continue with the suit just as the Democrats were able to get healthcare reform.
The first thing to do is to recognize that most of the loudest voices on the conservative side of things are great at making a lot of noise, but aren't so great at actually coming up with and following through on plans. Undercut them or prop them up as necessary.
If you want to prevent a suit in the first place, apply the same techniques as are outlined on the page about how to reduce illegal immigration.
there’s little additional harm for the administration in making moves that enrage conservatives, because the conservatives are already enraged, and no matter how enraged they get, they can only vote once. (You’re thinking, “shame there’s no ACORN on our side,” huh?) The independents are probably a lost cause. The only way to mitigate a rough year is to energize the base, and so for all extents and purposes, policy decisions for the next four months will be driven by the need to motivate disappointed liberal voters.
His political hackery fails to take into account the fact that not all liberals - and certainly not all Democrats - support massive illegal immigration. And, he fails to promote efforts that would cause those on the fence to realize the massive downsides of the current situation. The only people who should support massive illegal immigration are ideologues and those who directly profit; Geraghty isn't trying to split that small group off from the rest.
Dennis Welch, Kos, Amanda Terkel, Steve Benen, Ben Smith, Ben Frumin smear Jan Brewer over quote - 06/02/10
Arizona governor Jan Brewer is threatening to cost powerful people money and power through actions such as signing that state's new anti-illegal immigration law. Their lower-level hacks are currently swinging into action, deliberately misinterpreting a quote Brewer made in a disreputable attempt to claim that she inflated her father's war record [UPDATE: Statement from Brewer below]. Some are listed below, and if you find others please leave a comment.
During World War 2, Brewer's father worked at a Navy munitions depot in Nevada; he died in 1955 as a result of lung disease from that job. Brewer made the quote that's being misinterpreted in an interview with the Arizona Republic (link) where she spoke about the names she's been called:
"The Nazi comments . . . they are awful... Knowing that my father died fighting the Nazi regime in Germany, that I lost him when I was 11 because of that . . . and then to have them call me Hitler's daughter. It hurts. It's ugliness beyond anything I've ever experienced."
If Noam Chomsky were here, he might point out that there are various ways to interpret that quote, such as "died [as a later result of] fighting the Nazi regime in Germany", or "died fighting the Nazi regime [which was located] in Germany". In order to obtain the result that illegal immigration supporters want you to obtain, you're going to need to forget about very basic math: if she meant to say he died during World War 2, the youngest she could be is 76. No one in their right mind would think she's 76. If she were trying to lie, she would have adjusted her age downward in the quote to "when I was one years old". Further, in a speech a few months ago she described the backstory (link):
The governor's father did fight the Nazis and support the war effort, but he did it here at a munitions plant in the United States, not as a soldier in the European theater.
Brewer recounted the story of her father's war service during a March breakfast speech in the East Valley, saying that “Wilford Drinkwine believed his country needed him during World War II.”
In that speech, Brewer recalled how that belief prompted Drinkwine to move his family to the Nevada desert to take a job at the country's largest Navy munitions depot. She was born a year or two later; her father succumbed to lung disease before she was a teenager.
“Years of breathing poisonous fumes around harsh chemicals finally took his life,” Brewer said in that speech. “Wilford Drinkwine was my father. I was 11 years old.”
Those smearing Brewer include the following. None of the following attempt to explain how - if one is to buy their interpretation of her comments - Brewer would be claiming to be at least 76 years old. None except the first reference the fact that she's told the accurate story in past instances:
* Dennis Welch of the Arizona Guardian
He appears to be the originator of the smear, and his article starts with: "Gov. Jan Brewer said in a recent interview that her father died fighting Nazis in Germany. In fact, the death of Wilford Drinkwine came 10 years after World War II had ended." That's then followed by:
"She wasn't embellishing the story at all," [Paul Senseman, the governor's spokesman] said Tuesday. "You're reading something into this that isn't there."
He added that the governor has been very clear in the past about how her father died. Drinkwine was on full medical disability at the time of his death, Senseman said.
In a 2008 interview with the Republic, Brewer said her family was forced to move to California shortly before his death because of his health problems.
Brewer, 65, recounts similar stories in other media interviews and recent speeches.
Dennis Welch knew about what she's said about her background in the past, but choose to deliberately misinterpret her quote instead.
* Kos of DailyKos
He refers to the "Latino ethnic cleansing law" and says, "Ah yes, claiming her father died fighting Nazis in Germany should, in no way, be construed as implying that her father died fighting Nazis in Germany." Needless to say, he's deliberately misinterpreting her quote.
* Steve Benen of Washington Monthly
His post is entitled "WHEN REPUBLICANS LIE ABOUT RELATIVES' SERVICE RECORDS" and he references and parrots Kos: "I'm confused. When Brewer said her "father died fighting the Nazi regime in Germany," that wasn't intended to mean that her father was an American soldier in Germany during the Nazi regime?"
As with the others, what he claims she said is simply his misinterpretation.
While comparisons equating Brewer with Nazis are over the top and not constructive, Brewer’s anecdote doesn’t really stack up. The Arizona Guardian reports that in fact, “the death of Wilford Drinkwine came 10 years after World War II had ended. During the war, Drinkwine worked as a civilian supervisor for a naval munitions depot in Hawthorne, Nev. He died of lung disease in 1955 in California.” Brewer’s spokesman justified the governor’s statement, claiming Drinkwine “eventually died from the toxic fumes he inhaled” while working at the factory. (HT: Markos)
Of course, what doesn't "stack up" is Terkel's interpretation of Brewer's quote. The spokesman's comment isn't a "justification", it's an explanation.
* Ben Smith of the Politico
He links the AZ Republic interview and the Arizona Guardian story, but fails to do any more reporting than any of the others listed who are open about being partisans.
* Ben Frumin of TalkingPointsMemo
His post, which isn't as bad as some others, does include this:
It seems entirely possible that Brewer simply meant that her father died of an illness that was a direct cause of his employment at a wartime munitions factor.
UPDATE: Brewer has released a statement (link):
"My father, Wilford Drinkwine, moved our family before I was born from Minnesota to Nevada to work at the Hawthorne Ammunition Depot in Western Nevada at the outset of World War II. He passed away when I was 11 years old. His death came after a long and painful battle with lung disease, contracted following years of exposure to hazardous chemicals and toxic fumes while working as a civil servant at the base.
"I loved my father and was proud to hear him tell me that he was doing his part to help fight the Nazis in Germany. It's a similar story that I have heard from countless people from my parent's generation -- from women who worked in the factories to other family friends I met growing up near the depot. My father and mother instilled in me an understanding that many of those defenders of freedom who lost their lives in World War II never set foot on the battlefield.
"Even in the end, when my dad struggled for breath, he never regretted serving his country, helping free Europe from Hitler's grip. I have proudly recounted his story in many places for many years. My father's patriotism and sacrifice needs no embellishment."