Please visit our YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter pages.

1. Feds oppose AZ lawsuit merger
2. LA union members head to AZ
3. Inspection leads to arrest
4. Housing law suspended in NE
5. Action wanted against sanctuaries

1.
Feds oppose merger of their challenge to Arizona immigration law with officer's lawsuit
The Associated Press, July 28, 2010

PHOENIX (AP) — Lawyers for the U.S. Justice Department oppose a request to merge their challenge to the new Arizona immigration law with a lawsuit by a police officer who also is seeking to overturn the law.

The federal lawyers oppose Phoenix police Officer David Salgado's request to consolidate the cases because they say it would prejudice or delay their challenge.
. . .
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-us-immigratio...

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

2.
L.A. union members, activists to caravan to Arizona to protest immigration law
By Anna Gorman
The Los Angeles, July 28, 2010

As a judge weighs whether to halt Arizona's controversial immigration law, hundreds of Los Angeles union members and activists are planning a bus caravan to Phoenix on Thursday — the day the law is set to take effect.

More than 550 people plan to ride on 11 buses to Arizona to stage a protest and launch a partnership with Arizona groups to boost voter registration. During the one-day trip, sponsored by the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, participants will meet with Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris, march to the state Capitol and hold a vigil. The participants represent 32 unions.

SB 1070, signed into law by Gov. Jan Brewer in April and supported by a majority of Arizona residents, makes it a state crime to lack immigration documents and requires police to determine the immigration status of people they lawfully stop and subsequently suspect are in the country illegally.

"As Californians and Angelenos, we want to see how we can help not only defeat this specific law but also to help the Latino community be more active in the political process," said Maria Elena Durazo, executive secretary-treasurer of the labor federation. "Hopefully it will motivate some to go out and register to vote."

That is what happened in 1994 after California voters passed Proposition 187, which sought to restrict services from illegal immigrants before being struck down by the courts. More than one million California Latinos became citizens and voter registration spiked. Already, several groups in Arizona are registering voters and trying to increase Latino voter participation in an effort to shift the political landscape and stop any more anti-illegal immigrant laws from passing.

The caravan is just one of many activities planned Thursday. Immigration activists have declared it a "national day of action," with events planned in several cities to protest implementation of the Arizona law. They include a march across the Brooklyn Bridge in New York, a vigil outside a detention center in Georgia and a unity event in Chicago featuring faith, community and political leaders, along with 200 children. Chicago leaders also plan to deliver 2,000 letters to Chicago Cubs owner Tom Ricketts asking him to move the baseball team's spring training from Arizona to Florida.

The Obama administration filed a challenge to the law and argued in court last week that the federal government has the ultimate authority to implement immigration law and policy. The same day, immigrant rights groups argued that the law would lead to racial profiling and harassment of Latinos. U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton did not say whether she would stop the law or when she would issue a ruling.

Meanwhile, Arizona is gearing up for Thursday, with officers receiving training and Phoenix officials planning for demonstrations. There also will be protests throughout California, including in Los Angeles, Bakersfield and Redlands.
. . .
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0728-arizona-activists-20100728,...

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

3.
Illegal Immigrants Caught on a Yacht, in a Web of Maritime Laws
By Kirk Semple
The New York Times, July 28, 2010

Gaea Rich and her family were in full holiday mode aboard their yacht on the Fourth of July as they motored from Stamford, Conn., across Long Island Sound and into Oyster Bay, off the North Shore of Long Island.

Gaea Rich and her boyfriend, David Quinn, an immigrant from Ireland, were on board her uncle's yacht on Long Island Sound when federal officials boarded and began checking papers.

The trip, with more than 15 relatives and friends, was supposed to be the high point of a weekend family reunion. But a few hours into the cruise, after what began as an apparently routine stop by a marine patrol of local and federal law enforcement officials, two passengers — a Guatemalan caterer hired for the day and Ms. Rich’s boyfriend, David Quinn, an Irishman who had worked for years as a horse-carriage driver in Central Park — were taken away on a police boat by federal immigration officials. Both men were illegal immigrants; they now face deportation.

The yacht had been caught in a web of laws, little known outside the maritime community, that are meant to keep a tight leash on vessels that are registered in foreign countries or have traveled in international waters. And the boarding and interrogations on a pleasure craft came as quite a surprise to passengers.

“We couldn’t believe it,” recalled Ms. Rich, 28, a fashion designer for Ralph Lauren. “Everyone was just shocked.”

The boat is registered in the Caribbean nation of St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and owned by Ms. Rich’s uncle. He keeps the boat moored mostly in American waters: Stamford in the summer and Florida in the winter.

Many American yacht owners register their boats in foreign countries, often for tax purposes. That was her uncle’s reason, said Ms. Rich, adding that her uncle did not want to be interviewed or identified.

Federal maritime law requires that foreign-flagged vessels contact customs officials when they arrive at American ports, even if arriving from another American port. Immigration officials are permitted to board foreign-flagged vessels anytime, said Officer John F. Saleh, a spokesman for United States Customs and Border Protection. Coast Guard officials, who joined in the stop, are allowed to board any vessel at any time in American waters.

Maritime laws and their enforcement have tightened since 9/11. In the past several years, for example, the Coast Guard division on Staten Island — which patrols New York Harbor, the western half of Long Island Sound and the southern Hudson River — has stepped up its scrutiny of smaller foreign-flagged vessels, said Charles Rowe, a spokesman for the Coast Guard in New York City.

Mr. Rowe said that under the program, “Operation Small Fry,” Coast Guard officials, along with federal and local law enforcement personnel, have boarded about 750 such boats a year, to enforce customs, immigration and maritime laws.
. . .
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/nyregion/28yacht.html?src=mv

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

4.
Nebraska city suspends immigration law, goes to court
By Margery A. Beck
The Associated Press, July 28, 2010

FREMONT, Neb. (AP) — A Nebraska city suspended its voter-approved ban on hiring or renting property to illegal immigrants, but opponents still want a federal judge to block the ordinance until all legal fights are resolved.

Groups challenging the ordinance are expected in court Wednesday, a day after the Fremont City Council voted to suspended the ban. City officials said delaying the ordinance would save the city money as it fights lawsuits filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska and the Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund.

The groups, which call the ban discriminatory, along with attorneys for the city will ask a federal judge to block the ordinance pending a final court resolution, the ACLU said in a statement after Tuesday's vote.

"We're relieved that the Fremont City Council will suspend this discriminatory ordinance while it's being litigated," said Amy Miller, the ACLU of Nebraska's legal director. "It was a responsible decision that will spare residents of Fremont from worrying about losing housing and jobs because of their appearance and accent pending a final resolution by the court."

The ordinance has put Fremont on the list with Arizona and other places in the national debate over immigration regulations.The city council voted 8-0 to delay the ban at a meeting late Tuesday that attracted about 100 people, and some told council members that the ordinance has already led to divisiveness.

"This law is not yet in effect, but it is increasing conflict and discrimination," Lesley Velez, 20, of Fremont said.

But others said the council shouldn't second-guess voters.

"The citizens of Fremont have spoken. We should not delay this," said Terry Flanagan, a Fremont resident who supports the ban.

The council narrowly rejected the ban in 2008, prompting supporters to gather enough signatures for the ballot measure. Voters approved the ban last month and it was scheduled to take effect Thursday.

Council members also unanimously decided Tuesday to hire Kansas-based attorney and law professor Kris Kobach, who drafted the ordinance and offered to represent Fremont for free to fight the lawsuits. Kobach also helped write Arizona's new controversial immigration law.

Mr. Kobach said before the vote Tuesday that if the council delayed implementation, it would mean fewer court hearings over the lawsuits and make the process shorter and cheaper for the city. He didn't immediately return a message after the vote.
. . .
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/28/nebraska-city-suspends-i...

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

5.
Voters say take action against sanctuary cities
By Joesphe Weber
The Washington Times, July 28, 2010

A majority of likely voters say the federal government should take legal action against cities that provide safe havens to illegal immigrants and cut federal funds to so-called "sanctuary cities," a Rasmussen Reports survey shows.

The survey, released Tuesday, said 54 percent support legal action against sanctuary cities and 60 percent support withholding federal funds from the jurisdictions.

Critics of sanctuary cities say the Justice Department is acting unfairly by not pursuing such cities for breaking the law while taking legal action against Arizona for instituting state measures against illegal immigration.

"The federal government should be suing San Francisco, which has refused to cooperate with the federal government in enforcing immigration laws," said Corey Stewart, chairman of the Prince William (Va.) County Board of County Supervisors.

In 2007, Mr. Stewart was at the forefront of the issue, driving some of the county's toughest immigration laws.

"Our belief is that President Obama should be suing mayors [of sanctuary cities], not Arizona," said Maryland state Delegate Patrick L. McDonough, Baltimore County Republican. Mr. McDonough said he plans to introduce two immigration laws during the next General Assembly session: one that calls for a state ban on sanctuary cities and another patterned after the Arizona law.

A representative for U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. recently said a "big difference" exists between a state or locality choosing not to use resources to enforce a federal law and a state passing its own immigration policy that "actively interferes with federal law."

Rasmussen found that 56 percent of those surveyed oppose the Justice Department's action against Arizona and that 61 percent favor legislation similar to Arizona's in their own state.
. . .
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/27/voters-say-take-action-a...