Immigration Futures: Arizona Law Placed On-Hold

Just hours before the new Arizona Immigration law would go into effect, a federal judge placed the heart of the law on hold. U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton placed a hold on law enforcement checking the immigration status of any person detained for a crime; by also placing on-hold the requirement for immigrants to carry citizenship status documents. The other item she temporarily stopped is the ban on soliciting employment in public places as day laborers do, in most cases, impeding traffic while acknowledging that there are problems with border security.


What I am in conflict with is her ruling pertaining to immigrants not carrying their papers to prove their status, when federal rules and regulations all ready requires all immigrants to carry their papers on them at all times. Does her ruling supersede this regulation, or is there going to be a debate over this? This lawsuit is beginning to raise issues that will complicate the proceedings and guarantee a date with the Supreme Court. One must monitor their actions to insure that their decisions or judgment does not adversely affect or defeat the purpose of what they are attempting to correct, such as a judge over immigration issues.

I believe that most people can agree with being in the following situation or know someone who has been in this situation at one time or another. You are stopped by a law enforcement officer, he ask you for your license and registration so that he can see proof that you are who you say you are and that you vehicle is registered with the state. He asks you to stand by while he runs a check on you and or write you a ticket. Once he gets into his vehicle and make a call to "central" to validate your information using the number on your card, your address and if necessary, your date of birth. Even if you are a pedestrian, he will have you to stand by until he runs this check. The response comes back that you have no warrants, and no priors, but he suspects that you are not supposed to be in the area. So when he returns to you he asks you specifically for the reason that you are in the area.

Now, let's change the criteria of the situation. All is the same except that you do not have your driver's license or state identification to produce when the officer ask to see it. Now the cop's query goes in a different direction because he has no way of validating you and now he is even more suspicious of you being here. He notices your nervousness, voices his observation to you jokingly, and continues with more questions.

You are required to present some form of identification or face the possibility of being detained until proper identification can be made. Normally, you are expected to get your identification by the time you are 18 years of age, and present it whenever law enforcement request to see it during the course of their duties. However, some law enforcement agents, depending on the situation, do not enforce it, and allow you to proceed.

During this contact, the officer used your I.D. to verify your residence, your age, and if you are here legally (at this present location). Every citizen of the United States are required to have a document of birth (not on their person at all times), and some form of identification (on their person at all times) in the form of a state identification card or driver’s license.

An immigrant is required by federal law to keep with them at all times documents showing their immigration status. If the immigrant has been issued a green card showing residency status, whether permanent or temporary, he is required to have it on his person or immediately available. If they do not have such papers, they are to be detained until proof can be provided. Most times an enforcement agent will not request to see an immigrant's documents unless he either all ready know their status or suspect that they are here illegally.

What is the difference in what the Arizona law requires compared to the requirements of the federal immigration law? The answer is the agency that is enforcing the law and who created the law. Federal laws and regulations are supposed to be enforced and followed by every state of the union but are wrong if they decide to add their own provisions. The federal government, the Mexican government, and the other opponents of the Arizona law know this, can see this, but still want the law of the land to be broken. Racial profiling is not a matter of question, but a reality because the biggest illegal immigrant population in the United States is of Hispanic or Latino descent. The majorities of the Arizona law opponents are either Hispanic Latino descendants, have ties to the Mexican government, have ties to a drug cartel, or feel that there is similarity to the days of black slavery, the holocaust or have political value.

The Mexican government is preparing for a large influx of its citizens returning because of SB 1070 whether it is overturned or actually goes into effect. Is this what they are afraid of, the influx or the pressures of being forced to uphold its responsibilities to its citizens? The United States has taken on this job for far too long.

If Arizona’s immigration law goes from being blocked to being ruled unconstitutional, this will open the door for the supposed “federal immigration amnesty” that is in the rumor mill. That would mean at least a few million plus possible instant citizens, but it will also present new problems by making changes to portions of the immigration issue that the opponents of the law were using to get it permanently blocked. One possible future is that the new citizens will decide that their current earnings are not enough, and they do not have to take the jobs no one else wants any more.

Why would they want to when they are now citizens? “I am an American now, and I demand to be paid like an Americans” just might become their battle cry. This will mean a rise in prices for the consumer items they were producing because the employer would need to increase his prices to meet his payroll and production costs.

In another possible reality where law enforcement can not ask for immigration documents based off suspicion while performing their duties, employers will no longer be required to affirm immigration status for employment. They would just have to go off the word of the person that is seeking employment at their business.

In a final reality or alternate universe, English will no longer be the national language spoken or written in the United States, making it easier for illegals to hide. There would be no need for sanctuary cities or any other type of safe haven. Quietly and openly Mexico’s citizens and criminals have out-populated the United States majority, and non-violently invaded our nation by electing Hispanic or Latin-born politicians into key government positions. All of this happened because of the "unofficial open" southern border, and no real enforcement to keep the illegals out of the country.

Where did it all start? Who foresaw the quiet invasion of the United States? Who was it that gave Mexico the key allowing not only illegal Hispanic and Latinos into the country, but possibly disguised terrorist as well? It started before SB 1070, but 1070 was the catalyst of the above possible futures taking place. The main people responsible, in my opinion, would be our government for letting Mexico strong-arm them. Mexico and its citizens will be the most benefited if we can not come to terms and forge a strong immigration reform.

Arizona Takes On World To Protect Own

Mexico has received supporters from other nations in Latin America and parts of the world against Arizona's new immigration law that, unless blocked by the courts, will go into effect next Thursday. A federal judge formally accepted Mexico's filing July 1 but did not immediately rule on the latest motions filed late last week that will allow Uruguay, Panama, Ecuador, Bolivia, Guatemala, Cuba, Turkey, Senegal, Micronesia and Ghana to join in the lawsuit. The support comes at the end of the three-day Third World Conference of Parliamentary Presidents, which ended Wednesday in Geneva, Switzerland.

Mexico has contended ever since the bill was signed by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, that the law is nothing more than racial profiling and a violation of civil rights since the major illegal immigrant population in both Arizona and the United States are Hispanic or Latino and the law would be targeting them as a group of people.

The law, SB 1070, authorizes law enforcement officers at all levels during the performance of their normal duties to inquire about a person's citizenship if there is reasonable suspicion that they might be in the country illegally. It also makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally if caught within the state of Arizona.

What is it about the United States' southern border that has other nations involved with our country's politics? It can not only be that the new law is racial profiling, or violating a person's civil rights. What is involved in the big picture that the public is not being made aware of and is turning our nation into an international political battleground?

Each international opponents of Arizona’s law has a personal stake in what will occur at our southern borders. The United States government should be placing its citizens and the union as a top priority and insure that we have effective national security by protecting our southern border against illegals.

The south eastern most border of our country is like a revolving door for Cuban nationals to enter illegally. There is a long history there with Cuba's citizens trying to escape their country tyranny, but what was once easy is now becoming harder since 9/11 as national security is continuously changing and improving on enforcement. Cuba has an established community in the state of Florida known as "Little Cuba." The only other possible route for Cubans to enter the United States illegally would be at our Southern border neighboring Mexico.

Mexico has an immigration reform that is way more stringent than any imposed in the United States, especially when they are dealing with illegals at their southern border with harsh punishment, do not allow foreigners to get involved in their government’s business, and that includes protesting or voicing out their objections. Every level of law enforcement and the military are required to enforce immigration laws.

By their laws, they keep records on every tourist and foreigners that enter Mexico, as well as detailed records on its citizens. The immigration laws they have seems to work well for them. Perhaps it might be that they leave the actual policing of their Northern border to its northern neighbor, the United States. Getting into Mexico illegally is much harder than leaving it illegally. This is partially due to the work of the United States Border Patrol.

The Mexico - United States border is known to be the gateway to freedom to not only Mexicans that cross illegally, but for their southern neighbors that successfully get into Mexico and make their way to north. In the movie “Red Dawn” starring Patrick Swayze, Cubans and Mexicans crossed the border illegally, and strategically positioned themselves around the country. Then one day along with the Russians, for the first time, the world went to war on the North Ame3rican continent

From the very start in April, when Governor Jan Brewer signed off on SB 1070, Arizona has been attacked by organizations, municipalities, nations, celebrities and even their own federal government. Economically, organizations and municipalities have boycotted Arizona and tourism has been hurt with warnings to avoid Arizona because of this law.

The majority of the Americans polled support the action taken by Arizona, but in the past months, the politicians that represent them has denounced Arizona’s immigration law citing that it conflicts with federal law, would disrupt immigration enforcement and would lead to police harassment of those who cannot prove their lawful status. There are a minor number of lawmakers that are starting to show support for Arizona as well.

In this war of World versus Arizona, big brother can not be depended on for support. It will have to come from the people it protects.

Arkansas Poultry Business Busted For Illegal Employees

Article first published as Payment Method Request Prompts Federal Immigration Investigation on Blogcritics.

Local companies were attempting to hire employees to catch chickens following federal hiring guidelines and laws, but potential employees wanted to know if they would be paid in cash like another local company pays its workers. By paying in cash, criminals forego filing paperwork like Form 1099 Income with the government, and puts up a red flag that the employer might be hiring illegal aliens. If caught, the following could unfold as it has in the state of Arkansas.

On Friday, July 16, 2010, the company, Amador-Villenueva Contracting and J&A Loading, was charged with hiring and harboring 33 illegal immigrants plus laundering over $8 million in the U.S. District Court in Fort Smith, Arkansas, before Judge Robert T. Dawson. The owners of the business were the two oldest Amador-Villenueva brothers, Leoncio, 42 and Juan, 44.

The investigation was initiated after federal officials received information from “sources stating they were having a hard time hiring employees to catch chickens because the potential employees questioned whether they were going to get paid in cash as Amador Poultry pays its employees,” according to court documents.

The two brothers along with their younger brother Jose Manuel Amador-Villenueva, 39, all had previously plead guilty to a single count of conspiracy to harbor, transport and employ illegal aliens. Also prosecuted in the case was Leoncio’s wife, Kelle Stubbs-Amador.

Pleading guilty to a single count of money laundering, Lenico Amador-Villanueva received a sentence of 18 months of a recommended guideline of 30 to 37 months in prison with three years of supervised probation. Lenico along with his wife were also ordered to forfeit almost $640,000 in cash and assets worth an estimated $160,000 as part of a plea agreement.

Kelle Stubbs-Amador plead guilty to a single count of conspiracy to harbor, transport and employ illegal aliens and received a sentence of three years of supervised probation. Judge Dawson stated in response to his leniency in her sentencing to believing that her criminal activity was primarily a product of her spouse and also cited the couple’s five children, including twins born in June.

The youngest brother, Jose Manuel was sentenced to 12 months in prison plus three years of supervised probation and forfeiture of $73,000 as part of his plea agreement.

Juan Amador-Villenueva was the last to appear in court receiving 15 months in prison of a sentencing guideline of 24 to 30 months plus three years of supervised probation and forfeiture of about $800,000 in cash and assets including more than $600,000 in cash as part of his plea agreement.

The investigation conducted by Special Agent Scott Woodrow, of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement revealed that Jose Amador-Villanueva, had claimed to be a simple “field worker” but when he filed his 2008 tax return he reported income of $2 million and his occupation as “poultry contractor.” The $2 million reported were checks paid directly to him from OK Farms, were cashed, but never deposited in a financial institution.

Each of the defendants and their character witnesses were seeking leniency from Judge Dawson, however, Assistant U.S. Attorney Tracy Triplett reported that at least 33 illegal aliens were harbored by the defendants, more than $8 million was laundered through their business and not one employee was supplied with a Form 1099 to report income.

Arizona and like minded states are trying to prevent crimes of this type and magnitude from happening within their borders. Crimes that are federally regulated but are not being enforced as the illegals migrate farther away from the U.S.-Mexico border.

Federal Government Issues Quiet Warning To States

Article first published as Is DOJ Immigration Lawsuit a Warning to the States on Blogcritics.

When the Justice Department (DOJ) filed its lawsuit against Arizona’s new immigration law was it a warning to other states thinking about implementing similar laws, that immigration is their venue, and not the states? That matter of nationality is also a federal responsibility?

With the number of lawsuits filed with the federal courts, the DOJ did not need to file a suit of their own. The law opponents may think that by the government suing Arizona adds strength to their cause just because they are the federal government, which may be true, but there was really no need to sue for the same things that are all ready headed to federal court to be decided on.

The government in their claim says they do not want the states to come up with their own solution to immigration issues, and that immigration and nationally laws and policy are in their purview and is not delegated to the states. That federal law takes precedence is these matters. Getting an injunction to prevent Arizona’s immigration law from going into effect on July 29, 2010 would be considered a victory. This alone would say that there is a reasonable doubt as to how far a state can involve itself in federal matters or change precedence.

By consensus, the majority of the nation is behind Arizona and applauds their actions since there is no real federal law enforcement taking place. The Arizona law authorizes law enforcement officers in the course of performing their normal duties to question suspects about their citizenry if there is reasonable suspicion that they are in the country illegally, and makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally. The law also targets employers who knowingly employ illegals and seek out illegals to perform work for them.

It is the belief of the law’s opponents that this law is just a legal route to racial profiling and violation of civil rights because the majority of illegals in the nation are of Hispanic descent. The law’s wording does not specify any one group of people falls under this statute, just illegals, which cover all illegals no matter their race, creed, religion or nationality.

Prior to proposing any legislation regarding immigration, those states that are considering imposing laws similar to Arizona’s should wait and observe how this pans out. If the decision is in Arizona’s favor, seeing how they go about implementing it, how it takes shape and how it helps the problem would be the best course for other states to follow before implementing one of its own. The question of economics also should be taken into consideration since such laws normally bring constitutional challenges in court by organizations that advocate for civil rights, and in this case, boycotts could be very harmful.

If this is indeed a warning from the federal government to the states thinking about implementing laws similar to Arizona’s, the United States government, Obama and his crew, need to come up with a workable plan to protect our borders instead of just accepting responsibility for its failure to do so.