Please visit our YouTube and Facebook pages.

1. AZ pols mull criminalization
2. San Fran. okays sanctuary law
3. LAPD: no to enforcement
4. Arpaio: 61% approval rating
5. TX co. continues screening

1.
U.S.: Arizona Renews Push to Criminalise Immigrants
By Valeria Fernández
The Inter Press Service, October 28, 2009

Phoenix, AZ (IPS) -- Arizona could become the first state in the U.S. to criminalise the very presence of undocumented immigrants.

Local politicians renewed a push to pass legislation that would make it a misdemeanor to trespass on state lands, allowing local police to arrest anyone illegally in the country.

Arizona has been called a "laboratory for anti-immigrant laws" for the rest of the U.S. In 2007, the state adopted one of the country's toughest employer sanctions laws for companies that knowingly hire undocumented labour.

The campaign in favour of the "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighbourhoods Act" was launched after the federal government limited Maricopa County sheriff deputies' powers to enforce immigration law.

The enforcement of immigration law is considered the purview of the federal government in the U.S., but Arizona has been at the forefront of efforts to grant local police the ability to detain and deport undocumented immigrants.

"The feds [federal government] have been absent, and now they took it a step farther by refusing to let other people do their jobs," said Republican Senator Russell Pearce, who was crucial in the approval of the employer sanctions law.

Pearce believes local police have the inherent authority to enforce federal immigration laws. And so does Sheriff Joe Arpaio, one of the most controversial figures in the illegal immigration crackdown in Arizona.

That's at least what he's been claiming ever since the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) stripped his deputies of the powers to act as immigration officers in the community.

Arpaio had one of the largest forces in the nation deputised to enforce immigration laws on the streets and in the jails under an agreement with DHS known as 287(g).
. . .
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=49034

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

2.
Supes approve new S.F. sanctaury law
By Rachel Gordon
The San Francisco Chronicle, October 28, 2009

The Board of Supervisors gave final approval to changing the city's sanctuary policy with a veto-proof majority Tuesday, setting up a showdown with Mayor Gavin Newsom who said he will not enact the legislation over concerns of violating federal law.

The board voted 8-3 to amend city law so that undocumented youth arrested on felony charges be reported to federal immigration authorities for possible deportation only after they're convicted - not when they're arrested, as is now the case.

The vote, watched nationally, received enthusiastic applause from supporters who packed the City Hall supervisors' chamber.

Supervisor David Campos, chief sponsor of the legislation, said the issue is one of due process and an attempt to keep families from being ripped apart.

Newsom, who is running for governor, toughened the reporting policy last year.

The mayor will veto the legislation "in short order," said Nathan Ballard, his chief spokesman. The city's police chief and juvenile probation officers have said they would not follow the new law.
. . .
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/28/MN9I1ABGS5.D...

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

3.
LAPD chief: Cops shouldn't tag immigrants
The Associated Press, October 27, 2009

Los Angeles (AP) -- Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton says his department must stay out of the business of collaring illegal immigrants.

In an article in Tuesday's Los Angeles Times, Bratton says the LAPD should continue a three-decade-old policy that prohibits officers from stopping someone solely to determine whether they're in the country illegally.

Bratton says it's harder for police to do their job if witnesses won't come forward because they're afraid of deportation.

Dozens of state and local police agencies around the country have joined a federal program giving officers the powers of federal immigration agents. But the chief says his replacement should focus on community outreach and not community alienation.
. . .
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gEBYizaIzHnXUq98J9y2u5...

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

4.
Poll: 61% of voters in Arizona approve Arpaio's job approach
By JJ Hensley
The Arizona Republic (Phoenix), October 28, 2009

Arizona voters like Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's approach to his job and disagree with the federal government's immigration-related decisions with the sheriff, according to an Arizona State University and Channel 8 (KAET) poll released Tuesday night. The poll indicates a 61 percent job-approval rating for Arpaio, while 34 percent of voters disapproved, according to a telephone survey of 652 registered voters around the state.

The results were almost the opposite when it came to the U.S. government's recent decision to restrict Arpaio's federal immigration-enforcement authorization to the county's jails. Sixty percent disagreed with the government and 36 percent agreed.

The survey's results come weeks after Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials announced that Arpaio's deputies would no longer have federal authority to conduct screening on the streets for civil immigration violations. Since the policy change was announced, Arpaio has conducted a business raid, hosted news conferences and made regular appearances on local and national news shows to address his displeasure with the decision.

For Arpaio, the poll indicated slightly more support than he enjoyed in the 2008 election, where Arpaio received 55 percent of the vote compared with 42 percent for his opponent, Dan Saban.
. . .
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/10/28/20091028bigbrother1028...

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

5.
Harris Co. jailers to keep up immigration screening
By James Pinkerton
The Houston Chronicle, October 27, 2009

Harris County Commissioners Court voted Tuesday to continue screening jail prisoners for immigration status and referring those in the country illegally to federal authorities.

County Judge Ed Emmett and three commissioners voted for a three-year extension of the controversial 287(g) program expected to cost local taxpayers nearly $1 million a year.

Since the county began participating in the program, more than 10,650 inmates have been referred to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The court was undeterred by pastors, civil libertarians, civil rights leaders and immigration activists who insisted the program is a drain on local resources, spawns racial profiling and splits immigrant families.

“That is racist and outrageous,” University of Houston student Eric Ribellarsi shouted seconds after the court vote. He was escorted from the chamber, where he said the real objective of 287(g) is to “rip apart” immigrant families.

Purpose debated

A nearly equal number of anti-illegal immigrant activists spoke in favor of the program, several mentioning the toll of local law enforcement officers killed or injured during arrests of illegal immigrants.

“Is this about fighting crime or fighting immigrants?” asked Deacon Joe Rubio, vice-president of Catholic Charities for the Houston-Galveston Archdiocese, who claimed the program has been used to purge towns and cities of immigrant populations.

“This is a crime prevention program — it has nothing to do with race or culture,” said Janet Thomas, a member of Houston-based U.S. Border Watch, whose members have picketed work centers used by illegal immigrants.

Sheriff supports

The vote followed a presentation by Sheriff Adrian Garcia, who urged the court to extend the program, saying, “You and I agree we should keep what works and change what doesn't.”

The 287(g) program is part of a 1996 immigration law allowing local police to be trained to operate federal immigration databases in jails and prisons.

“Some think 287(g) encourages racial profiling. I say every single person booked into our jails faces some kind of immigration screening, regardless of skin color, accent, age or attire,” said Garcia, noting that 1,000 immigration detainers are placed on immigrants each month, most of them from Latin Americans, but also from such countries as Canada, Korea, Nigeria and Pakistan. “I will not tolerate any racial profiling and anyone caught doing this can count on the risk of losing their job.”
. . .
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hotstories/6688576.html