1. Obama, Sheriff Arpaio clash
2. DOJ eyes four lawsuits
3. Focus on Sec. Comm.
4. OK lawmaker in law
5. FL GOP backs away

1.
Obama, Arizona Sheriff Arpaio clash over immigration
By David Jackson
USA Today, September 28, 2011

President Obama and Arizona-based Sheriff Joe Arpaio -- noted for his roundups of illegal immigrants -- are mixing it up.

In a roundtable on Hispanic issues Wednesday, Obama said his Justice Department challenged the Arizona immigration law backed by Arpaio because "we thought that there was a great danger that naturalized citizens -- individuals with Latino surnames -- potentially could be vulnerable to questioning."
. . .
During the Hispanic roundtable, Obama was asked to comment on a reported civil rights investigation of Arpaio's office.

"Well, I have to be careful about commenting on individual cases," Obama said. "That's handled typically by the Department of Justice or these other agencies. What I will say is this: that the approach that's been taken to immigration in Arizona, I think, has not always been as productive as it's been."

Arpaio said:

"He's a lawyer; he is pretty sharp to avoid direct questions. ... He made some comments talking about people being stopped because of their name. He didn't like the 1070 law, he connects me with 1070. And my answer is: I am just doing my job, and I arrest everyone that violates the law, and I am not going to stop."
. . .
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/09/obama-arizo...

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

2.
Justice Department eyes 4 more immigration lawsuits
By Mackenzie Weinger
Politico (DC), September 30, 2011

The Obama administration is ratcheting up its efforts against state immigration laws around the country, according to a new report.

After suing Arizona and Alabama over immigration measures enacted in those states, the Justice Department is currently reviewing immigration laws in four other states to decide whether to challenge the measures, the Washington Post reported. The immigration measures being examined were enacted in Utah, Georgia, South Carolina and Indiana.

The Justice Department will examine the four laws to see the extent to which the measures interfere with the federal government’s enforcement of immigration law.

“Based on that review and applying those principles, the United States will decide whether and when to bring suit challenging particular state laws,” Justice Department spokesperson Xochitl Hinojosa said.

The potential challenges come at an opportune time for the White House, which is seeking to boost Hispanic support for President Barack Obama’s reelection bid.

“I don’t recall any time in history that the Justice Department has so aggressively challenged state laws,” Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law expert at George Washington University Law School, told the Post.
. . .
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/64792.html

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

3.
Fatal Accident Puts Focus on Deportation Program
By Abby Goodnough
The New York Times, September 29, 2011

BOSTON — A fatal accident that the police say involved an illegal immigrant driving drunk has stirred outrage in Massachusetts and put Gov. Deval Patrick on the defensive for his resistance to a federal program intended to deport criminals.

According to the police, the immigrant, Nicolas Guaman from Ecuador, struck and killed a young motorcyclist in Milford last month while intoxicated, dragging him for a quarter of a mile. Mr. Guaman has a previous criminal record, the police said, and many here have pointed to his case as an example of why the federal program, known as Secure Communities, is necessary.

Under Secure Communities, the fingerprints of anyone booked into jail by the state and local police are sent through the F.B.I. to the Department of Homeland Security, which tracks immigration violations. Immigration agents then decide whether to deport immigrants flagged by such checks.

Mr. Patrick, a Democrat, announced in June that Massachusetts would not participate in Secure Communities, citing concerns that it casts too wide a net and leads to the deportation of immigrants with no criminal histories. Two other Democratic governors, Pat Quinn of Illinois and Andrew M. Cuomo of New York, have also rejected the program, though the Obama administration has announced plans to expand it nationwide, with or without states’ support, by the end of 2013.

The Guaman case and several others — including that of Onyango Obama, a Kenyan uncle of President Obama who was arrested last month outside Boston on drunken-driving charges and found to be in violation of a 1992 deportation order — have become part of a growing debate over whether Massachusetts is too easy on illegal immigrants.

Critics, including some Democrats, are also asking why Mr. Patrick, a close ally of Mr. Obama’s, would reject a program central to Mr. Obama’s immigration enforcement plan. The Obama administration has taken steps recently to focus its deportation strategy on illegal immigrants who have been convicted of violent and drug-related crimes.

“Unfortunately, the governor doesn’t think it’s a serious enough problem to deal with,” said State Senator Richard T. Moore, a Democrat whose district includes Milford. “We’re hearing from the public constantly: what are we going to do about this problem?”
. . .
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/30/us/politics/fatal-accident-puts-focus-...

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

4.
Okla. immigration chair sees little need for law
By Sean Murphy
The Associated Press, September 29, 2011

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — The new co-chairman of a legislative panel on illegal immigration said Thursday he sees no pressing need in Oklahoma for more legislation on the issue, prompting outrage from some hardline proponents of a crackdown on illegal immigrants.

After four hours of testimony at a House interim study, state Rep. Charles Ortega said he heard no evidence supporting the need for broad immigration-related reforms.

"I keep hearing and have heard and continue to hear that because the cost is so monumental we need to really address this issue and impose these laws and penalties," said Ortega, R-Altus, the new co-chair of a joint House and Senate panel on illegal immigration. "But when you go to criminalizing people and you go to criminalizing businesses and you go to disrupting lives, I think we need to be careful where we tread in that area."

Ortega's comments drew immediate outrage from those who support harsher laws targeting illegal immigrants, including state Sen. Ralph Shortey, who represents a heavily Hispanic district in south Oklahoma City.

He said allowing Ortega to lead the immigration committee "is just like having Osama bin Laden as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. You have a chairman who doesn't want to have meaningful immigration reform."

"Come to south Oklahoma City and you'll see that we have a very big need," Shortey said.

Shortey, who was elected last year after campaigning on the need to crack down on illegal immigration, sponsored bills to deny Oklahoma citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrants, make English the state's official language, and another, dubbed "Arizona-plus," that would allow police to confiscate property belonging to those in the country illegally, among other things. None of the bills cleared the Legislature.

Illegal immigration has been a tricky issue for Republicans because the push for a tougher crackdown has collided with another Republican priority — creating a pro-business environment — and business and industry leaders have quietly resisted attempts to add more restrictions on the hiring of illegal immigrant workers.
. . .
http://www.chron.com/news/article/Okla-immigration-chair-sees-little-nee...

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

5.
Fla. Republican leaders back away from immigration reform plans
By Mary Ellen Klas
The Miami Herald, September 30, 2011

Can Florida legislators turn their backs on immigration reform?

That is the question hovering over Republicans this week after Rick Perry’s performance in last week’s presidential debate and the results of the Florida straw poll, which show that being soft on the issue can imperil Republicans strapped to a primary.

Florida’s Tea Party activists say they will accept nothing short of requiring every employer to check the immigration status of their workers through the federal E-verify program in January when legislators convene in regular session. But armed with the support of Florida’s powerful agriculture and business groups, the same legislative leaders who last year promised Arizona-style immigration reform are now barely offering tentative support for it.

Senate President Mike Haridopolos said his chamber is ready to revive a Senate bill, which gives police additional enforcement power. But the watered-down measure does not include E-verify and is too weak for many in the Tea Party.

Gov. Rick Scott, after requiring state agencies to use E-verify and campaigning for it to be implemented statewide, told the Herald/Times Thursday that his priority is not E-verify but to give law enforcement the ability to check the immigration status of people they stop.

"What we’re more interested in is making sure that if someone is in our state illegally and they’re doing something illegal that we’re able to ask them if they’re legal. That’s my priority," Scott said.
. . .
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/09/30/2432242/fla-republican-leaders-bac...