thomas saenz: 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.
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.
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.
Thomas Saenz: new president of MALDEF (Villaraigosa, Obama's DOJ, support for illegal immigration) - 07/16/09
Thomas Saenz - current chief counsel to Los Angeles City mayor Antonio Villaraigosa - has been selected to be the new president and general counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF). He was under consideration to head the civil rights division of the Department of Justice until that was withdrawn due perhaps to him and his affiliations being a bit too on the extreme side.
Among his priorities as head of the Latino civil rights organization, Saenz said, is ensuring that all children have equal access to a quality public education. The fund also will continue to combat anti-illegal immigrant sentiment that has been on the rise in some parts of the country. He said comprehensive immigration reform is a critical challenge for the Obama administration and Congress.
Willon also quotes their chairwoman Patricia Madrid:
"The Latino community is currently facing a drastic rise in hate crimes and witnessing an explosive rebirth of extremist anti-immigrant rhetoric and measures that adversely affect all Latinos..."
That "drastic rise" is only true if you try to mislead with statistics.
Oh no! The National Council of La Raza (overview at the link) offers "NCLR EXPRESSES PROFOUND DISAPPOINTMENT WITH SAENZ DECISION" (nclr.org/content/news/detail/56284) about the recent de-appointment of former MALDEF attorney Thomas Saenz.
The general rule is that anything that causes disappointment for the NCLR should cause joy for those Americans who support our laws. Unfortunately, that might not be true in this case: the person selected instead is also linked to a questionable group.
Nevertheless, let's enjoy the "disappointment" of Janet Murguia:
"We are concerned that [Saenz'] name may have been pulled from consideration over his 'position on immigration' and the signal that it sends to young lawyers weighing careers in upholding the nation's civil rights laws. Mr. Saenz has successfully litigated cases based on the merits of immigration law and has done so with integrity and professionalism. Where he stands on an issue is not as significant as his understanding of the law and his ability to argue the facts... I am confident that at his confirmation hearing Mr. Saenz would have been able to address any questions related to his litigation work on immigration based on the facts of the cases he argued and the law. Unfortunately he will not be given that opportunity... This action may lead some to question whether the White House is ready to fulfill its promise on immigration reform. Along with the nomination of Tom Perez as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, the Latino community will be looking for further reassurance that this is not the case. Nonetheless, the administration missed an opportunity to bring the debate back to the merits of the law, rather than succumb to the shrill voices of fear."
For about a dozen years, Saenz worked as an attorney for the far-left, illegal immigration-supporting Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), and lately he was of counsel to the far-left, illegal immigration-supporting mayor of Los Angeles, Antonio Villaraigosa.
Needless to say, the ACLU cheered the news:
"I don’t think the president or attorney general could make a better selection," said Mark Rosenbaum, legal director of the ACLU of Southern California. "He's a throwback to the great civil rights attorney pioneers, like Thurgood Marshall." ...Rosenbaum praised Saenz’s work challenging the legality of voter measures, ranging from Proposition 187, the ballot initiative that sought to cut off social and education services to undocumented immigrants, to his work on the University of Michigan case challenging the legality of affirmative action in admissions.
First Data Corporation - the current or former parent company of Western Union - conducted several immigration "reform" panels around the country in 2004. The [[July 22, 2004]] version was held in Denver and is described here.
That page describes how a fight broke out, which appears to have been initiated by an illegal immigration supporter.
Normally, I'd just ignore inconsequential reports in inconsequential newspapers, but it does have this absolutely hilarious bit:
Thomas Saenz, one of the MALDEF lawyers arguing the case on behalf of the day laborers, said that in his experience at least some anti-immigrant sentiment is usually behind the enactment and enforcement of anti-solicitation ordinances. The day laborers, he said, are "a visible manifestation of what they are uncomfortable with, which is immigrant presence in their community."Redondo should indeed watch who they're dealing with. They should start with MALDEF, a non-grassroots far-left pro-illegal immigration organization that was basically created out of whole cloth by the Ford Foundation.
Saenz said 50 communities in California have such ordinances, but few are enforced because of their questionable constitutionality. He suggested that even if Redondo Beach had no intention of stirring anti-immigrant emotions, its actions have inevitably had that effect.
"The city should reflect on who its allies end up being," said Saenz. "It will tell them a great deal about what their actions have sanctioned. It does embolden people to engage in acts they otherwise wouldn't — some of these fringe groups feel the city has officially sanctioned their cause by abusing the rights of these guys."
You can contact the advocacy piece's author at news *at* easyreader.info
A federal judge on Monday temporarily blocked the city of Redondo Beach from arresting day laborers who solicit jobs on the street...
In issuing a temporary restraining order, U.S. District Judge Consuelo Marshall said the city's policy could do "irreparable harm" to workers and questioned whether it was constitutional...
...If the city's attorneys are unable to show cause, the ban could be extended through the duration of the case, said Thomas Saenz, vice president of litigation for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund...
Saenz said his organization has identified at least 50 cities statewide that prohibit day laborers from soliciting work in the street, among them Agoura Hills, San Bernardino and Chino.
The organization has successfully represented day laborers against the city of Los Altos in Northern California and against Rancho Cucamonga, Upland and Los Angeles County.
A case against Glendale is pending, Saenz said.
In case you're wondering about the link I added to the article, see this:
...The Ford Foundation, for example, in 1968 single-handedly funded the creation of The Mexican American Legal Defense Fund (MALDEF) and The Southwest Council Of La Raza, later renamed National Council Of La Raza. Both groups are radical mouthpieces for the "rights" of illegal immigrants (including the advocacy of college tuition for illegals at state universities), have managed to force bilingual education in many areas and remain wholly unrepresentative of the average Hispanic-American citizenry...