prldef: Page 1
Supreme Court upholds 2007 Arizona immigration enforcement law; eVerify; losing: US Chamber, DOJ, Berman, NCLR, ADL, SPLC, AILA, SEIU, LULAC - 05/26/11
In a major victory for states that want to reduce illegal immigration, the US Supreme Court has upheld Arizona's 2007 "Legal Arizona Workers Act" employer enforcement law that requires the use of eVerify and that allows Arizona to pull the business licenses of companies that knowingly hire illegal aliens. Note that the 2007 law and the decision have no relation to Arizona's more recent immigration law. A Los Angeles Times article is here, and links to legal documents are here. Sonia Sotomayor voted in dissent; see her name's link.
Others who filed briefs in the case and who lost today include (see each link for more on that group):
* Rep. Howard Berman
* National Council of La Raza
* Anti Defamation League
* American Immigration Lawyers Association
* PRLDEF (a former associated group of Sotomayor)
* Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law (a former associated group of Barack Obama)
* Southern Poverty Law Center
* Service Employees International Union
* National Day Laborer Organizing Network(NDLON)
* National Immigrant Justice Center
* American Immigration Council
* Asian American Justice Center
* Asian American Institute
* Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund
* Asian Law Caucus
* Asian Pacific American Legal Center of Southern California
* League of United Latin American Citizens
* Legal Aid Society
* Los Abogados Hispanic Bar Association
* National Employment Law Project
Others on the losing side were former senator Arlen Specter and Ron Mazzoli (of the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli amnesty fame).
UPDATE: Thomas Saenz of MALDEF (which doesn't appear to have been involved in the suit) weighs in. He got one thing right: just because the 2007 law was upheld doesn't mean SB 1070 will prevail. In my opinion, states should just simply copy Arizona's 2007 law for now.
In any case, here's what Saenz says (maldef.org/news/releases/az_evrfy):
"Today's regrettable decision in Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting is a tortured product of judicial activism responding to perceived political views of the moment. The majority proclaims itself unable to find implied preemption of an Arizona law that plainly impedes a federal scheme of exclusive enforcement of longstanding immigration-related employment law, and then, with a facile shift, easily finds an implied permission for Arizona to mandate E-verify, a power that Congress denied the federal government itself. All of this is accomplished through providing talismanic significance to the word 'licensing' even though Arizona's use of the term violates any plain-language or historical understanding of the term."
"Despite this egregious outcome, today's decision provides little predictive value as to the constitutional issue of preemption with respect to Arizona's SB 1070 and similar laws recently enacted in other states. Laws that encroach on exclusive federal immigration enforcement by mandating or permitting untrained local police officers to engage in racial profiling will find little refuge in today's decision. Wise state and local lawmakers must continue to tread carefully in areas touching on immigration. As has been the case for well over 200 years, federal action remains the sole legitimate avenue to address immigration issues."
UPDATE 2: The ADL weighs in with a bit of a muted press release (adl.org/PresRele/SupremeCourt_33/6050_33.htm). They're "disappointed":
The law increases the legal risks for businesses that employ undocumented workers but fails to provide sufficient \safeguards to protect those workers against unlawful treatment. It undermines federal efforts to balance discrimination concerns with control of illegal immigration.
The Arizona law also requires state use of E-Verify – a federal pilot program that allows employers to verify the eligibility of newly-hired employees – even though the program relies on records that are prone to error. That is one reason Congress has decided to hold off on making participation in the program mandatory.
Although the Court has upheld Arizona's law, we hope other states will show greater concern for the potentially discriminatory impact such laws can have, and choose not to follow Arizona's lead.
And, I hope they do follow Arizona's lead. We'll see how that works out; I tend to think several will.
Justice Department investigating Suffolk County (NY) Police (treatment of Latinos; follows SPLC report) - 10/08/09
Just over a month ago, the Southern Poverty Law Center released a report alleging anti-Latino policing in Suffolk County (Long Island, New York). Now the Department of Justice has launched an investigation (link):
Justice Department investigators “will seek to determine whether there are systemic violations of the Constitution or federal law” by the police, said Alejandro Miyar, a spokesman for the department. The agency notified Suffolk police authorities of the investigation on Sept. 30.
The police commissioner, Richard Dormer, said in a telephone interview that he welcomed the federal investigation into his police force and denied that there had any police discrimination against Latino crime victims.
"For a long time Latinos in Suffolk County felt that the Suffolk County police have been hostile or indifferent to their well-being and that they have not been treated as white residents have been treated,” said Foster Maer, senior litigation counsel for LatinoJustice P.R.L.D.E.F., an advocacy group based in Manhattan that had been pressing the Justice Department for the inquiry.
The Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (PRLDEF) officially opposed Bork, whose nomination by President Ronald Reagan was rejected by the Senate in 1987, "because of the threat he poses to the civil rights of the Latino community," its president reported in one of several documents from the group that the Senate Judiciary Committee released Wednesday.
And, from this:
Sonia Sotomayor, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, and more quotes (on PRLDEF board for 12 years) - 06/13/09
This post will round up Sonia Sotomayor's involvement with the far-left, illegal immigration-supporting Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (PRLDEF), nowadays called "LatinoJustice PRLDEF". See below for some of the details on her involvement with that group and even more questionable quotes from her.
NYT: Sotomayors Focus on Race Issues May Be Hurdle (laying the groundwork for her withdrawal?) - 05/30/09
David Kirkpatrick of the New York Times offers "Sotomayor’s Focus on Race Issues May Be Hurdle" (link). Kremlin watchers are invited to speculate on whether they're trying to get those issues out of the way now, whether they're trying to give her an easy pretext to withdraw, or something else.
Judge Sotomayor, whose parents moved to New York from Puerto Rico, has championed the importance of considering race and ethnicity in admissions, hiring and even judicial selection at almost every stage of her career — as a student activist at Princeton and at Yale Law School, as a board member of left-leaning Hispanic advocacy groups and as a federal judge arguing for diversity on the bench.
Sonia Sotomayor: affirmative action nominee for Supreme Court? Close to far-left Puerto Rico extremists? - 05/26/09
[SEE THE UPDATES]
Judge Sonia Sotomayor is Barack Obama's choice to replace David Souter on the US Supreme Court. Weak GOP talking points are here; Peter Baker and Jeff Zeleny (remember him?) have the New York Times' take here.
Was she selected only because of her outstanding grasp of legal issues? Or, was at least part of the selection due to the fact that she's a woman and a Hispanic? Were there more qualified possibilities who didn't happen to fit the politically-friendly uniform? If so, then she is indeed an affirmative action pick, despite the many attempts to claim otherwise we'll be treated to in the months to come. See the quotes at .
Expect the Democrats and their helpers to try to present any opposition to her as anti-Hispanic, just as they constantly played the race card before the election. Three examples at . Note that many MSM reporters and politicians will, either through ignorance or simple dishonesty, fail to note that most Hispanics in the U.S. are Mexican-American, and pan-Hispanic ethnic nationalism will only go so far with most.
It will be interesting to see whether some interesting quotes will come to light; here's one:
Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.
And, one thing the MSM won't look into - and the GOP won't discuss - is whether she's an extremist or not. To what extent does she agree with Luis Gutierrez and Nydia Velazquez, both of whom are former U.S. leaders of the Puerto Rican Socialist Party? Sotomayer is a former member of the far-left, illegal immigration-supporting PRLDEF; did she say or do anything interesting while a member? With Mexican-American leaders it's easy for me to tell their level of support for reconquista sentiments; I'm not familiar with Puerto Rican issues, and it's probably going to be difficult to find anyone to give the straight scoop on her position on issues like sovereignty.
UPDATE: Regarding that possible extremism, we're getting there. From this:
After launching a public campaign to force Princeton University to hire faculty and administrators of "Puerto Rican or Chicano heritage," Sotomayor finally got her way. But she wasn't finished complaining. Despite being appointed to a student advisory board that would counsel the University on the hiring of a "minority dean," Sotomayor was ultimately unsatisfied by the appointment of Luis Garcia as Associate Dean of Student Affairs in September 1974. Sotomayor had a litany of complaints ranging from the manner in which the advisory board was selected to the manner in which the candidate was selected.
See also this.
Meanwhile, this says:
her legal theses included Race in the American Classroom, and Undying Injustice: American "Exceptionalism" and Permanent Bigotry, and Deadly Obsession: American Gun Culture. In this text, the student Sotomayor explained that the Second Amendment to the Constitution did not actually afford individual citizens the right to bear arms, but only duly conferred organizations, like the military. Instead of making guns illegal, she argues that they have been illegal for individuals to own since the passing of the Bill of Rights.
However: that quote is supposedly from americannews.com, a site that appears to have only existed as a parked domain for several years. Consider the last quote a hoax or at least inflation of some kind until a source is provided. UPDATE: The last post has a "satire" tag; I don't think it was there when this was posted but my assumptions were correct. If you ever run across that site again, please ignore them.
UPDATE 2: Video of some of her questionable statements is here.
Back in 1978, she dropped out of the running for a law firm job and filed a complaint after being asked whether he heritage had "culturally deprived" her (link).
Per this, as a District judge she ordered a "$10,000 fine to someone who pleads guilty to a federal charge of sharing in more than $200,000 in kickbacks".
Latino legal activists applauded Sotomayor's appointment. "This is a historic moment," said Cesar Perales, executive director of LatinoJustice PRLDEF, a New York-based civil rights group, where Sotomayor once served as a board member. "This is the most important Hispanic appointment that has been made in this country's history. It is a recognition that we are coming of age, that we can be one of nine wise people on the Supreme Court, making decisions that affect everyone in this country." ...During her years on the organization's board during the 1980s, the organization, then known as the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, focused its efforts on the creation of majority-Hispanic voting districts and the defense of bilingual education programs.
There's more on the PRLDEF here, specifically relating to their campaign against Bush nominee Miguel Estrada.
UPDATE 3: From this: Three of the five majority opinions written by Judge Sotomayor for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and reviewed by the Supreme Court were reversed...
A Latino advocacy group in New York has filed an international petition against the United States of America, charging that the government has fostered an anti-immigrant climate and then stood idly by as the human rights of Hispanics are violated.
The allegations were brought by LatinoJustice PRLDEF -- a New York City group formerly known as the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund -- in a petition before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, which is part of the Organization of American States...
Theirs is a purely symbolic gesture, and the most that could come out of it would be a sharply-worded rebuke from the OAS. However, it's worth noting that - even as he was running for U.S. president - Bill Richardson was shilling for the OAS.
Coalition that wants to give "immigrants" voting rights in New York City.
"Statement of Principles": immigrantvoting.org/Coalition/principles.html
One of those is: "We need to close the gap between local government and the people it serves. New York government officials 'do not adequately reflect the faces of the people they represent."
Members of the group:
In the current case, one of the ACLU's helpers is People for the "American" Way. Let's hope that their legal filings are a bit more precise than their misleading press release:
A coalition of Riverside business owners and landlords and residents will file a lawsuit today against the Township of Riverside in state court, contending that the recently adopted Illegal Immigration Relief Act oversteps the city's authority, is too vague, unfairly puts businesses at risk and violates civil rights under state law.Come on, it's OK now, we're all friend here: you can say "illegal".
The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys from the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, People For the American Way Foundation, Spear Wilderman, P.C, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation Immigrants' Rights Project, American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey and Ragonese Albano & Viola.
The ordinance is one of the most restrictive of the recent wave of anti-immigrant legislation passed by local governments across the nation. It attempts to ban immigrants from renting, residing, using property or being employed in Riverside. The ordinance, in very broad terms, applies to actions that "aid or abet" undocumented immigrants anywhere in the United States.
"This ordinance is so vague and overbroad that it's virtually impossible to obey and appears to ban a large amount of innocent conduct," said Elliot Mincberg, Vice-President and Legal Director for PFAW Foundation. "Even a hospital or church that allows an immigrant on its premises could be charged with a violation."
New Jersey Appleseed and the Seton Hall Law School Center for Social Justice will be filing amicus briefs, and another person involved is David Verduin, "a Riverside business owner and a plaintiff". He's identified here (also here) as the president of the "Coalition of Business Owners and Landlords". That also says that Franco Ordonez, owner of the "King Chicken" (probably "Chicken King") restaurant is another member. (See the "ghost town"-style propaganda piece here from Summer Harlow of Delaware Online in which an employee of that company is quoted and the Coalition is mentioned, but no link between the company and the Coalition is noted.) This page identifies another member as Steve Marino; he's identified as a "landlord" here. A copy of an earlier letter identifies one of the lawyers for the ACLU-IRP as Omar C. Jadwat, Esq., which rings a bell for some reason. And, this page says:
O empresário americano David Verduin lidera uma coalizão de empresários americanos e brasileiros que entrou na Justiça contra a lei antiimigrante de Riverside. Ele morou 20 anos no Brasil e se considera brasileiro de coração. Também sofreu ao ver os brasileiros serem ofendidos.I take that to say in part that he lived in Brazil for 20 years and considers himself Brazilian in his heart, but I'd appreciate an accurate translation.
I don't know about the members of the CBOL, but obviously a fair number of business owners and landlords in Riverside are making money off illegal immigration. And, if the ACLU wins that would help said business owners and landlords to keep making money off illegal immigration.
I wonder what your average donor to the ACLU thinks of their constant support for illegal immigration? While the ACLU is infamous for accepting a few very unpopular clients, when they're always on the same, wrong side of one issue people have to begin to wonder what's going on.
Various far-left forces have sued Hazleton over the immigration law they passed last month. The suit has no less than 235 individual claims, and those filing it include:
In addition to various individuals, those supposedly harmed by the law include:
* Casa Dominica (described as a non-profit agency designed to "promote the Hispanic culture and empower the Hispanic community of Hazleton." The suit claims it had 150 members before the ordinance was passed, but that number has now dropped to 110.)
* Hazleton Hispanic Business Association (no search results)
* Pennsylvania Statewide Latino Coalition (pslconline.org)
It would be quite helpful if anyone could find any links between any of the above and extremists, foreign governments, etc.
The suit admits one plaintiff, John Doe 2, is in the country illegally. It reads he "is included within the definition if 'illegal alien,' but he is in fact living and working in the United States with the full knowledge of the federal government."
Mysterioso! Is he not really an illegal alien, or are those far-left groups just trying to say no person is illegal? And, expect a similar formulation to be used in other suits to try to prevent deportations in the future: a form of squatter's rights.
In the media bias arena, Jon Hurdle of Reuters' report is headlined "Pennsylvania town sued over strict immigration law". In his world, anti-American groups like the ACLU are "civil rights campaigners".
Al Walentis/Reading Eagle taken to task
Ed Rendell: America's anti-American governor
Hazleton: Dr. Agapito Lopez rejects assimilation
Hazleton sued by far-left illegal immigration supporters
The New York DMV is trying to prevent illegal aliens  from getting New York driver's licenses. If you've been reading the New York Times or the New York Daily News or press releases from various organizations, you might have been confused into thinking that they're trying to prevent all immigrants from getting licenses, but that's not true.