Please visit our YouTube, Twitter and Facebook pages.

1. AZ sues feds over border
2. UT lawmakers change bill
3. GA panel holds hearing
4. Rally for enforcement
5. Farmworkers are dependent

1.
Arizona sues feds over immigration issues
By Alia Beard Rau and Ginger Rough
The Arizona Republic, February 11, 2011

Arizona took the unusual step Thursday of suing the federal government over its immigration policies, claiming it has failed to secure the border and protect the state from an "invasion" of illegal immigrants.

About half a dozen other states have pursued similar, and unsuccessful, legal efforts over the past two decades.

Gov. Jan Brewer said the intent of the lawsuit, and the state's priority, is to force the federal government to protect Arizonans.

"The first and foremost issue we're facing right now is the security, safety and welfare of our citizens," Brewer said. "The federal government needs to step up and do their job."

The lawsuit asks the court to require the federal government to finish building 700 miles of fence along the border, provide enough federal immigration officers in Arizona to respond to local law-enforcement needs, change the way the federal government reimburses states for incarcerating criminal illegal immigrants and allow Arizona to enforce federal immigration laws.

The White House and the U.S. Department of Justice declined to comment.

Matt Chandler, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security, said in a statement that "a meritless court claim such as this does nothing to secure the border."

What suit says

The state filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Phoenix as a countersuit to the lawsuit the Department of Justice filed against Arizona challenging the constitutionality of its immigration law, Senate Bill 1070.

Judge Susan Bolton halted part of SB 1070 from going into effect this summer. Brewer appealed the injunction and has been waiting for a ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The full case is still before Bolton, who has not scheduled hearings.

Brewer filed the countersuit as part of the full case. The suit names as defendants the U.S.; the Department of Homeland Security and its secretary, Janet Napolitano; the Justice Department; and Attorney General Eric Holder.

"Arizona did not want this fight. We did not start this fight," Brewer said. "But now that we are in it, Arizona will not rest until our border is secured and federal immigration laws are enforced."
. . .
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2011/02/11/201102...

********
********

2.
Sandstrom revises immigration bill
By David Montero
The Salt Lake Tribune, February 11, 2011

Rep. Stephen Sandstrom unveiled the latest changes to his enforcement-only immigration bill Thursday — the most significant of which gives local police discretion whether to run legal-status checks on people detained for minor offenses.

The change came about after local governments balked at the fiscal note on HB70, which estimated the cost of enforcing it at between $5.3 million and $11.3 million. Sandstrom, R-Orem, said that by giving police the choice of running legal-status checks on those pulled over for Class B or C misdemeanors, it will “significantly lower” the cost of enforcement. He also plans to introduce legislation that would add revenue streams to the bill by attaching a fee to wire transfers of money between Utah and foreign countries as well as raising the fee on getting a driving-privilege card.

That, however, may be problematic now that Sen. Stephen Urquhart, R-St. George, is looking to repeal the driver-privilege card.

Sandstrom also resisted criticism by some who feel his bill has been “watered down.”

“We’re trying to catch the criminal element in the illegal community,” Sandstrom said. “That’s the ones we want most.”

The crux of the change in his bill is the requirement for police. Instead of directing that officers “shall” enforce federal immigration laws, it would say they “may” enforce them when dealing with minor infractions.

“They [local police] did not want to have to run in the soccer mom that is taking her kids to soccer practice and happens to be speeding, when they could go after the felony offenders that happen to be here illegally,” Sandstrom said.

But Tony Yapias, who attended Sandstrom’s news conference, said the proposed law remains unconstitutional and that it isn’t really different than before.

“It’s been dressed up in a new dress — a little different color — but the body of the bill is still the same,” Yapias said.

Sandstrom’s changes also included defining “reasonable suspicion” when investigating a criminal violation. Under the latest version, that suspicion would apply to anyone not able to produce a state or tribal identification — including a driver license.

He also said he has the support of local law enforcement — though he wouldn’t provide specific names other than Ogden Police Chief Jon Greiner, a former state senator, who has been a steady supporter of the proposed measure, even before the changes.

To prove he doesn’t believe the bill is watered down, Sandstrom had some of the most ardent anti-illegal-immigration activists flanking him during his comments at the Capitol and said that those who are claiming it’s a weaker bill are opponents simply “casting aspersions” on it.

Among those who spoke in support of the changes were Utah Minuteman Project Chairman Eli Cawley and Utah Coalition on Illegal Immigration spokesman Ron Mortensen. Sandstrom was also joined by Rep. Chris Herrod, R-Provo, as well as a variety of tea party groups.
. . .
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/51230850-76/xgrimmigration.html.csp

********
********

3.
House panel to hold final hearing on immigration bill Friday
By Jeremy Redmon
The Atlanta Journal Constitution, Februayr 11, 2011

A legislative panel will hold its third and final public hearing Friday morning on an Arizona-style bill targeting illegal immigration.

A revised version of House Bill 87 could be presented at that hearing. The bill’s sponsor -- Republican Rep. Matt Ramsey of Peachtree City -- said he has been considering some changes. He recently confirmed he was already on the 16th draft of the bill.

“We are working on some revisions and will hopefully have it done in the next day or so,” Ramsey wrote in an e-mail Thursday.

The House Judicial Non-Civil Committee is expected to start the hearing at 9:30 at the state Capitol. Committee Chairman Rich Golick, R-Smyrna, said a committee vote has not yet been scheduled.

More than a dozen people spoke during Tuesday’s hearing on the 17-page bill, including religious leaders, immigrant rights activists, business groups and immigration watchdogs.
. . .
http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/house-panel-to-hold-8...

********
********

4.
Conservatives at CPAC Rally for Border Enforcement
By Kelly Vlahos
Foxnews.com, February 11, 2011

Conservatives spoke out Thursday in favor of stepping up border enforcement while criticizing so-called reform plans they dismiss as "amnesty" for illegal immigrants in speeches and panel discussions at the Conservative Political Action Conference.

The Republican leadership in Washington isn't expected to raise immigration as a front-burner issue in the near term, they said, but conservatives are even more skeptical of any “immigration reform” proposals that might bubble up from the Obama administration or from bipartisan ranks.

“Anybody that brings up amnesty in this Congress, we need to just take the scarlet 'A' for amnesty and pin it on them,” said Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, who has been a big driver for tough immigration laws in Congress.

King told an audience at CPAC that there is some measure of hope: the new House majority and 87 Republican freshman that have come up largely through the Tea Party ranks should be expected to hold the line against“comprehensive reform,” especially amnesty. “I don’t think anything comes through this Congress that grants amnesty.”

The “amnesty” he refers to is a measure included in past comprehensive reform bills that would allow illegal workers -- some of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants now living in the United States -- a chance to stay in the country to earn a green card under a "guest worker program," or return home and be fast-tracked for a green card in order to return. Both proposals have failed to advance.

Though the immigration issue was clearly not the hottest topic at CPAC this year, those who did seek to raise it pointed to Arizona’s Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, who passed a law in her state last year that would give police more power to arrest and deport illegal aliens there. She was subsequently sued by the Justice Department, arguing that the law is unconstitutional; Brewer announced on Thursday that Arizona will countersue on grounds that the federal government has failed to enforce its own immigration laws.

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who spoke at CPAC on an immigration policy panel, said he helped to write the Arizona law, and insists that “enforcement through attrition” is the only way to go – that the states, and the federal government, step up their enforcement and the rate of illegal immigration will be sure to decline.

“You ratchet the level of law enforcement … to ensure that it is in their (illegal immigrants’) best interest to follow the law and in their case, just go home,” said Kobach, who said he is also working on ways to restrict the babies of illegal immigrants from automatically becoming citizens at the state level. “Arizona has shown on a statewide level that you can do exactly that, in fact, Arizona is the model for attrition through enforcement.”

Mark Krikorian, head of the Center for Immigration Studies, told FoxNews.com that he believes immigration will in fact get more play in the next Congress because of the Tea Party influence on the GOP landscape. “It’s moved up significantly” on the ladder of priorities, he asserted. “In the Tea Party, everyone is pro-law enforcement,” he noted, adding that it was “harder to be open borders” in the Republican Party today.
. . .
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/10/conservatives-cpac-rally-bord...

********
********

5.
Farmworker Advocacy Group Says Agricultural Business Depends on Undocumented Labor
By Elizabeth Llorente
Fox News Latino, February 11, 2011

A national farmworker advocacy group says that the growing push in Congress for policies that will pressure employers to make sure their employees are not undocumented does nothing to help the agricultural business, which depends on a sizeable unauthorized workforce.

“The status quo for farmworkers and agricultural businesses is untenable and must be reformed,” the organization, Farmworker Justice, said in a statement. “Over 50% of farmworkers are undocumented."

"The lack of immigration status," the group said, "contributes to the significant problems in agricultural workplaces and communities: low wages, poor working conditions, pesticide poisoning, and substandard housing.”

The group released the statement on Thursday, when the House Judiciary Committee’s immigration panel held a hearing on E-Verify, an electronic employment eligibility system that allows employers to check the immigration status of their workers.

The database holds records of the Social Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security, which includes immigration departments.

At present, participation in E-Verify is voluntary, except for certain federal contractors.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, reiterated his support for tougher workplace enforcement of immigration laws in a statement on Thursday. Smith would like to see employer participation in E-Verify become mandatory.

“With unemployment over 9 percent now for 21 months, jobs are scarce and families are worried,” Smith said. “Seven million people are working in the U.S. illegally. These jobs should go to legal workers.”

“One effective program to help ensure jobs are reserved for citizens and legal workers is E-Verify,” Smith said.

Critics of E-Verify say the database can give misleading information, and that erroneous data that would lead an employer to believe that a lawful worker is here illegally could prompt to a wrongful firing.

Critics also say that some groups, such as Latinos and other minorities, might be put under greater, baseless scrutiny by employers because of their surname or accent.
. . .
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2011/02/10/farmworker-advocacy...