1. Obama backtracks on 'enemies'
2. Court support for AZ law
3. New GOP could include hard-liners
4. UN uses AZ law as example
5. Hispanic voters' priorities

1.
Obama pulls back on 'enemies' remark to Latinos
The Associated Press, November 1, 2010
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gTVgdp3hcR3NNM8rwjlhKn...

A day before the pivotal midterm elections, President Barack Obama pulled back from remarks he made last month when he called on Latino voters to punish their "enemies" on Election Day. In an interview Monday with radio host Michael Baisden, Obama said he should have used the word "opponents" instead of enemies.

Republicans were quick to criticize the president's remarks. House Minority Leader John Boehner was expected to use Obama's words in an election eve speech in Ohio to paint the president as a staunch partisan.

"Sadly, we have a president who uses the word 'enemy' for fellow Americans, fellow citizens. He used it for people who disagree with his agenda of bigger government," Boehner said, according to prepared remarks released in advance of his speech.

Obama's original comments came during an interview with Eddie "Piolin" Sotelo, a Hispanic radio personality. Piolin questioned how Obama could ask Latinos for their vote when many don't believe he's worked hard to pass comprehensive immigration reform.

Obama responded: "If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, 'We're gonna punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,' if they don't see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it's gonna be harder."

The president said Monday that the message he was trying to send was that voters need to support lawmakers who stand with them on the issue.

"Now the Republicans are saying that I'm calling them enemies," Obama said. "What I'm saying is you're an opponent of this particular provision, comprehensive immigration reform, which is something very different."

With Republicans poised to score sweeping victories in Tuesday's election, Obama has been imploring the Democratic base to vote in hopes of turning some close races in his party's favor.

Though Obama had no publicly announced campaign events on his schedule Monday and Tuesday, the president has been doing radio interviews targeting young people, African-Americans and voters in key states. He was also to hold a conference call Monday night with campaign volunteers in Florida, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Hawaii.

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

2.
Court signals backing for Arizona immigration law
By Bob Egelko
San Francisco Chronicle, November 2, 2010
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/11/01/MNDP1G54K0.DTL

A federal appeals court appeared willing Monday to reinstate, but weaken, a central provision of an Arizona law allowing police to stop and question suspected illegal immigrants.

A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals indicated that it would authorize police to demand papers from those they reasonably suspected of being in the country illegally, but would not allow authorities to arrest or prosecute them under state law.

That would still allow suspects to be referred to U.S. authorities for deportation, however.

At an hourlong hearing in a packed San Francisco courtroom, two panel members suggested that a federal judge had gone too far when she blocked enforcement of all major provisions of the law.

Responding to an Obama administration lawsuit that claimed Arizona was interfering with federal regulation of immigration, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton issued an injunction July 28, less than 24 hours before the law was to take effect.

The judge barred Arizona from requiring police to order anyone they stopped for a crime, and reasonably suspected of being in the country illegally, to produce proof of legal status. She also blocked a provision allowing police to detain anyone they believed was deportable because of a previous conviction.

In addition, Bolton blocked provisions of the law making it a crime for illegal immigrants to seek work, and for a noncitizen to be in the state illegally or to fail to carry immigration documents.

Court's leanings

Based on judges' comments in Monday's hearing, the appeals court appeared likely to lift the ban on police authority to demand immigration papers and detain immigrants who faced deportation, while upholding Bolton's rulings against state criminal penalties.

The appeals court panel - Judges Carlos Bea, John Noonan and Richard Paez - appeared to agree with Bolton's conclusion that a state law against illegal immigration would conflict with federal authority over immigration.

But Bea and Noonan indicated they saw no conflict between federal law and Arizona's requirement that police seek immigration documents from suspected illegal migrants.

Bea noted that federal law requires U.S. officials to respond to police inquiries about the immigration status of anyone under arrest. If police can request that information, he asked, why can't they also order someone to show proof of legal status?

Arizona's case

The state can cooperate with federal immigration authorities but can't establish its own enforcement policy, replied Edwin Kneedler, a deputy solicitor general. If Arizona's law is allowed, it could encourage a "patchwork of law" among different states, he said.

Kneedler also argued that requiring immigrants to produce documents in every police encounter would sweep up legal residents who weren't carrying papers.

But Noonan said Congress has not barred police from obtaining immigration information and contacting federal authorities, or from holding a noncitizen who could be deported because of a previous conviction.

What state could do

If the court reinstates those provisions, police in Arizona could order a suspected illegal immigrant to produce a driver's license or other documents, and could make inquiries to immigration officials.

But state prosecutors could not charge someone for failing to possess the required papers.

That would strip the requirement of most of its force, Arizona's lawyer, John Bouma, said after the hearing. "If (the state) can't prosecute them, it doesn't make a lot of sense to hold them," he said.

Bouma urged the court to reinstate criminal penalties against illegal immigrants who seek work. But the judges said they were bound by the appeals court's 1990 ruling that allowed penalties only against the immigrants' employers.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who attended the hearing, said afterward that the state was prepared to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Civil liberties groups have a separate lawsuit pending before Bolton that contends the Arizona law promotes racial profiling.

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

3.
New GOP-ers tough on immigration?
By Simmi Aujla
Politico (Washington, D.C.), November 1, 2010
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44512.html

The Republican class set to sweep into the House after Tuesday’s midterm elections could include several freshmen who have some real world experience cracking down on illegal immigration.

Candidates like Lou Barletta, mayor of Hazleton, Pa., promise to pressure Republicans already in Congress to make sure immigration doesn’t get lost among all the talk about creating jobs and otherwise bolstering the nation’s still sagging economy.

Barletta, who’s trying to unseat veteran Democratic Rep. Paul Kanjorski, got national attention with a 2006 ordinance that would revoke the licenses of businesses that employ illegal immigrants and fine landlords for renting to illegal immigrants. It was struck down in a federal court in September, though, and hasn’t been enforced.

“We can convince others, if we’re going to deal with the deficit and the budget, you can’t exclude the illegal immigration problem out of that equation because it has a direct effect on the budget,” Barletta told POLITICO. “Not dealing with it would be like having a car with three wheels.”

Then there’s State Sen. Jeff Perry, who’s running against Democrat William Keating for an open seat in a Massachusetts district that includes Cape Cod. For the past four years, Perry has introduced a bill that would ban illegal immigrants from accessing social services such as public housing.

If he wins, Perry plans to introduce federal legislation that would stop social services funding, just like the law he tried to get through in Massachusetts, and supports ideas such as a mandatory national verification program that isn’t popular with business groups and Republican House leaders.

“It impacts people who are trying to create jobs and people who are trying to find jobs,” Perry said. “We have a lot of small businesses here in this congressional district. There’s not a week that goes by that I don’t’ hear from them. They’re frustrated.”

“Especially in the blue collar trades,” he said, “they’re competing against illegal immigrants who don’t pay their taxes. They don’t play by the same rules and that needs to change.”

In Alabama, Montgomery City Council member Martha Roby, who shepherded an ordinance through the council that goes after businesses who hire illegal immigrants, has a shot at knocking off Democratic Rep. Bobby Bright.

In Florida, state Rep. Sandy Adams, who’s looking to oust Democratic Rep. Suzanne Kosmas, has repeatedly pushed legislation to stop illegal immigrants from getting drivers’ licenses or from being able to pay university tuition at in-state rates. She’s also introduced a bill to crack down on government contractors who hire illegal immigrants.

And several other candidates in Arizona and New Mexico, among other states – like Steve Pearce and Jesse Kelly – persistently have campaigned hard right on immigration.

Their support for measures that crack down on businesses could run into strong opposition from Republican congressional leaders, who avoided laying out a plan for comprehensive immigration reform in the GOP “Pledge to America.”

The national immigration debate trickled down to the state and local level in 2005 and 2006, prompting several local politicians who are now running for congressional seats to address the issue.

In 1994, few of the new Republicans had tackled immigration, and the pressure for reform came from incumbents such Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and a bipartisan congressional commission.

Should Republicans gain control of the House Tuesday, Smith and Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) would likely be leading investigations of the Obama administration’s enforcement of existing laws as the likely new chairmen of the House Judiciary Committee and its Immigration Subcommittee.

Smith has campaigned for Perry in his district, praising him for his work on immigration and saying wants to see Perry on the Judiciary Committee.

Smith and King lobbied to get leaders to promise to solve immigration earlier this year, when the party was drafting the Pledge to America, but weren’t successful. Now, they’re counting on pressure from conservative freshmen to help them bring immigration legislation to the floor.

“I hope they are not easily led. I hope they are the leaders themselves,” King said.

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

4.
U.N. says migrants face worst racism, Arizona law cited
By Louis Charbonneau
Reuters, November 1, 2010
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6A055U20101101

Migrants bear the brunt of discrimination around the world, and Arizona's controversial immigration law is the kind of policy that could open the door to human rights abuses, a U.N. investigator said on Monday.

"If I have any specific group ... subject to the most insidious contemporary forms of racial discrimination, then those are migrants," said U.N. special rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism and xenophobia, Githu Muigai.

"In many parts of the world today, immigrants bear the brunt of xenophobic intolerance," Muigai, a Kenyan lawyer, told reporters.

"This is true of the United States, as it is of Europe, as indeed it is in many parts of the world."

He cited the example of the U.S. state of Arizona's immigration law, which would require police in the course of a lawful stop to determine the status of anyone they suspect is in the country illegally.

That law, the subject of a fierce legal battle in the U.S. court system, has been scrutinized and criticized around the world, partly due to concerns it would encourage racial profiling and promote discrimination.

Muigai said there was nothing barring countries from implementing "a fair, open and transparent migration policy." But the Arizona law is something different.

He said it "equips a policeman ... with such immense powers as to compromise in my point of view the very, very fundamental human rights that ought to be enjoyed in such an enlightened part of the world as Arizona."

"What I find difficult ... to reconcile to is the stigmatization, the negative stereotyping that goes with ethnic profiling," Muigai said, adding that "an immigration policy that does not respond to minimum international human rights standards is inherently ... suspect."

A U.S. federal district judge in July put on hold key parts of the state law known as SB 1070, arguing that immigration matters are the federal government's responsibility.

Arizona on Monday asked U.S. appellate judges to allow the law to go into effect while the legal battle continues.

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

5.
Several issues vital for Hispanics
By Jurt Ullrich
Dubuque Telegraph Herald, November 1, 2010

When Dubuque-area Hispanic citizens vote on Tuesday, their issues will be no different than those of the population at large.

The subject of immigration reform is generally not at the top of their priority list. Local voters generally seem to mirror the recent polling reports released by the Center for Immigration Studies, which showed that jobs, education, health care and the burgeoning U.S. budget deficit rank well ahead of immigration issues.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, more than 1,700 people of Hispanic or Latino origin reside in Dubuque County, and for those who are not yet citizens, or who have recently become citizens, immigration begins to move up the list.

"Immigration is only one of many issues important to local Hispanics," said Sister Jeanette McCarthy, of the Dubuque Archdiocese Hispanic Ministry. "Believe me, if Hispanic immigrants lose their jobs, like many did when the Dubuque Family Restaurant closed, immigration issues are way down the list of priorities.

"Many, many of our local Hispanics are U.S. citizens and have been in Dubuque a very long time. And a good number of our

Hispanic immigrants have legal documents and many are in the process of becoming citizens, but to go through the process of becoming a citizen is very lengthy and expensive."

Between 1990 and 2000, the number of immigrants who have settled in Iowa has more than doubled and the number of first-generation immigrants living in the United States has reached almost 40 million, with Mexico as the leading emigrating country.

Gabriela "Gaby" Nesler, of Dubuque and originally from Mexico, has been a U.S. citizen for two years and doesn't see immigration as the No. 1 issue.

"Here in Dubuque we are very interested in education. That is our biggest priority. We're also interested in the new laws concerning immigration, not so much for us, but for those who come after."
. . .
http://www.thonline.com/article.cfm?id=300845