Jake Takes On Rand Paul, Wondering If "[He] Has Anything To Hide"; And, "Why [Trey Grayson] Doesn’t Have Competent People To Give Him Advice?".

Read about Jake's Rand Paul and Trey Grayson, with an invitation to "see [Youtube video] for yourself".

(H/T: Jake)

Republicans Ed Mills, Mike Wilson And Regina Webb "Debate" In 38Th Senatorial District Race. Read More Below.

Mike Wilson (from left), Regina Webb and Ed Mills, Republican candidates competing for the state Senate’s 32nd District seat, participate in a debate Thursday at Western Kentucky’s Downing University Center.

On common ground
Economic woes a focus in Republican state Senate debate
By ROBYN L. MINOR

The possibility of eliminating the state income tax was floated first by one Republican candidate for the 32nd District Senate seat and then a second.

Ed Mills was first to bring the idea up during a friendly debate Thursday at Western Kentucky University. He was followed by Regina Webb.

Mills’ response came when he was asked what he would do to combat the state’s high unemployment rate. Mills also said he had a 10-point plan to increase wealth in the state by buying local and ensuring that the state contracted as much as possible with companies within its borders.

“Eighty-five percent of the dollars spent on those contracts with state companies would remain here,” he said.

If outside goods and services are contracted for, just 15 percent remains in the state, he said.

Webb said she wanted to lower income taxes and later said she might also favor eliminating the income tax.

“When companies want to locate somewhere, they are looking for lower taxes,” she said.

Mike Wilson didn’t broach the income tax elimination.

“The big thing is removing the barriers for the companies who want to locate here,” he said. “Eighty percent of companies looking to locate somewhere rule us out because we are not a right to work state.”

Wilson pledged to sponsor such legislation.

Webb, owner of Regina Webb Spa and Salon; Wilson, general manager of Christian radio WCVK; and Mills, retired from General Motors and one of the co-founders of Hitcents; are vying to battle Democrat incumbent Mike Reynolds in the November election. The primary is May 18.

When asked Thursday if state budget problems were a spending or revenue issue, Webb said it was wasteful spending.

As an appointee by former Gov. Ernie Fletcher to the state Board of Cosmetology, Webb said she saw firsthand “all the wasteful spending that goes on in Frankfort.”

Wilson also thinks the state spends too much.

The Senate did the heavy lifting on the budget by blocking the money House Democrats wanted to spend on school projects in their districts, he said.

“But if the revenue is not coming in ... you need to live on a budget,” he said.

But Mills said the state needs to focus on increasing jobs that ultimately would create more wealth and revenue in the state.

“Two billion deficit (over two years) is too much to overcome by eliminating wasteful spending,” he said.

On expanding gambling, all three candidates said voters should decide the issue by voting for or against a constitutional amendment.

Only Wilson expressed a personal opinion about expanding gaming - he’s against it.

Wilson said Mississippi has found the costs of gambling are far greater than any revenue it brings in.

“And they still had to raise taxes,” he said.

Mills said if sent to Frankfort, he would decide on business issues and leave such social-related issues to the voters.

In regard to further reforms they’d like to see in education, Mills said Kentucky missed its chance for federal Race to the Top dollars because it did not have charter schools. If it had them, Kentucky would have scored higher than Tennessee and gotten the $100 million that state recently received.

Webb said Kentucky should pay its teachers more.

“If we raise the pay, we can attract people who have more heart into it,” she said.

Wilson said education reforms on both the state and federal level have saddled teachers with too much paperwork.

“If we free them up of some of that, they can have more of an impact on students,” he said.

Wilson said eliminating prevailing wage on state projects could free up as much as $130 million in a budget that could be spent in education.

When asked if lawmakers should cap university tuition, Wilson and Mills were adamantly opposed to it.

Webb was less decisive, saying the issue was something she needed to study.

When asked, aside from jobs, what was the most important issue he or she would focus on, Mills said education; Webb said lower taxes; and Wilson said finding ways for the state to deal with the $300 million annually of unfunded mandates created by health care reform.

Thursday’s debate was sponsored by Western Kentucky University Student Government Association and the Political Engagement Project and was moderated by Barb Deeb, a producer and host for WKYU-TV.

Florida Governor Charlie Crist Gives "The Finger" To The GOP, Bolts Republican Party To Run For Senate As An Independent. Watch Video.

Laugh below ...:




... and watch video below:

Welcome To Arizona. LOL.

DeWayne Wickham: "Insurrection In Arizona". YEP!

Insurrection in Arizona
By DeWayne Wickham

Though it has been settled law since the Civil War ended that a state cannot secede from the union, Arizona's extreme action suggests it imagines it can.

Given this existential loophole, Gov. Jan Brewer has signed a bill that unilaterally gives her state the power to enforce federal immigration law and mandates that people who cross its borders carry an identity card acceptable to Arizona. The law defines this as an Arizona driver's license, identity card, tribal identification, or any federal, state or local government ID issued after a person proved he's a legal resident of the U.S. Anyone caught in the Grand Canyon State without one of these IDs will be subject to up to six months in jail and a $2,500 fine. The law takes effect 90 days after the Legislature adjourns.

Arizona's law ostensibly targets “alien(s)” who are “unlawfully present in the United States.” But there's little doubt it will be used disproportionately against Hispanics, who are 30 percent of the state's population. “We cannot sacrifice our safety to the murderous greed of drug cartels,” Brewer said at the bill-signing ceremony. “We cannot stand idly by as drop houses, kidnappings and violence compromise our quality of life. We cannot delay while the destruction happening south of our international border creeps its way north,” she said in an apparent reference to the drug war raging in Mexico.

But the law doesn't target drug dealers so much as it stigmatizes Arizona's large Mexican population. “The way it's tailored is very clear. You're looking for brown-skinned individuals. … It's people coming across the border illegally and they're talking mostly about Mexicans,” Santa Cruz County Sheriff Tony Estrada told Tucson TV station KGUN9.

Keeping people from illegally entering this country isn't a bad idea. But Arizona's law is an “ends justify the means” attempt that enjoys widespread support among its voters. According to a Rasmussen poll, while 53 percent of the state's likely voters think enforcement of the law will potentially violate the civil rights of some U.S. citizens, 70 percent support it anyway. The law is backed by 84 percent of Republicans, 51 percent of Democrats and 69 percent of unaffiliated voters.

There are, fortunately, some pockets of resistance. Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon, a Democrat, has threatened to file suit against the new law. Interim Maricopa County Attorney Rick Romley, a Republican, tried to talk Brewer into vetoing the immigration bill. More than 1,000 Phoenix high school students, who used Twitter and Facebook to organize, walked out of class and marched to the state Capitol to protest the measure a day before Brewer signed it Friday.

But it will be left to the federal government to counter Arizona's immigration witch hunt. The Obama administration can do this by refusing to take custody of any nonviolent illegal immigrants whom local police charge with “misdemeanor trespassing” — the immigration offense the new law creates. Faced with a $3 billion budget deficit, Brewer is pushing a controversial 1-cent sales tax increase that will be on the state's ballot on May 18. If illegal immigrants are left in the state's custody, Arizona will have to bear the financial cost of its decision to usurp the federal government's authority to legislate immigration laws.

While such a stance isn't likely to produce a surrender like the one at Appomattox Court House that ended the Civil War, it could force Arizona's governor and lawmakers to end their legislative insurrection.

DeWayne Wickham is a columnist with Gannett News Service. His e-mail address is DeWayneWickham@aol.com.

Lawmakers To Attorney General Eric Holder: Goldman, Other Firms Aren't 'Too Big For Jail' I Say: "Amen, Walls"!

Lawmakers to Holder: Goldman, other firms aren't 'too big for jail'
By Greg Gordon

WASHINGTON — Maintaining that no Wall Street executive is "too big for jail," 62 members of the House of Representatives asked the Justice Department Wednesday to investigate whether Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street firms committed criminal fraud in the lead-up to the subprime mortgage meltdown.

Two liberal-leaning activist groups, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee and MoveOn.org, also said that they garnered the signatures of 140,000 Americans on a petition supporting the request.

The congressional letter asks Attorney General Eric Holder to order investigations into Wall Street's role in the financial crisis, and especially whether Goldman employees broke any laws in a 2007 offshore deal that led the Securities and Exchange Commission to file a civil fraud suit earlier this month.

"If both global and domestic confidence in the integrity of the U.S. financial system is to be regained, there must be confidence that criminal acts will be vigorously pursued and perpetrators punished," wrote the House members, led by Rep. Marcy Kaptur, an Ohio Democrat.

Kaptur, a member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which has investigated aspects of the financial crisis, said that "an ever growing mountain of evidence" suggests that the SEC case against Goldman "is neither unique nor isolated."

"The American people both demand and deserve justice in the matter of Wall Street banks, whom the American taxpayers bailed out, only to see unemployment and housing foreclosures rise," she said.

Others signing the letter included Michigan Democratic Rep. John Conyers, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Republican Rep. Michael Burgess of Texas and conservative Democratic Reps. Bart Stupak of Michigan, Charlie Melancon of Louisiana, John Barrow of Georgia, Gene Taylor of Mississippi and Ben Chandler of Kentucky.

The request came a day after a Senate panel took more than 10 hours of sworn testimony from Goldman chief executive Lloyd Blankfein and six other present and former company executives over allegations that the firm sold off billions of dollars in risky mortgages while secretly betting that they'd fail.

The SEC accused Goldman and one of its younger vice presidents of allowing a longtime client to stack an offshore deal with highly risky mortgages and then secretly bet that they'd fail. The investor, the hedge fund Paulson & Co., later made $1 billion on the deal while two European banks lost that amount.

Goldman has denied wrongdoing.

The SEC has declined to say whether it referred its evidence to the Justice Department, which with the FBI has been investigating a number of major corporations' roles in the financial crisis. Department spokeswoman Alisa Finelli said only that "the department will review the letter" from Congress.

Read more: http://www.kentucky.com/2010/04/28/1243327/lawmakers-to-holder-are-goldman.html#ixzz0mRgY32MJ

Lexington Herald Leader Editorial Suggests: 'One And Done' Has Consequences: UK Trustees Must Determine Direction.

'One and done' has consequences
UK trustees must determine direction

The four freshman basketball players leaving the team this year were not really at the University of Kentucky as scholars, even though they received scholarships.

They weren't the student-athletes the National Collegiate Athletics Association lauds. They are talented athletes who needed a high-profile place to spend the requisite year before entering the National Basketball Association Draft.

There's nothing wrong with that from the players' perspectives. They made perfectly well-reasoned calculations about their careers.

The disconnect, the irrationality rests with the universities. They exist to educate, yet they are recruiting people who come with the fervent hope they won't stay to earn a degree, or even complete two semesters of class work.

UK President Lee T. Todd Jr., recently acknowledged that to Herald-Leader sports reporter Jerry Tipton. "It's a system problem," he said.

Todd, who will soon join the NCAA Division I Board of Directors, said he plans to raise the issue of one-and-dones there. Tipton reported that Todd is favorable to baseball's approach in which players can go professional after high school, but if they choose college, they are committed for three seasons.

A Kentucky native who earned a doctorate and succeeded in engineering, Todd campaigned for his job saying Kentucky would be a better place with a better-educated population.

He has to wince when the annual accounting of graduation rates in big-time college basketball programs are released. This year Kentucky, although seeded No. 1 in the tournament, was sixth lowest among 65 teams in graduation rates, with a pitiful 31 percent.

But Todd also has been in his job long enough to know you don't mess with basketball unless someone's got your back. That has to be his board of trustees. When the excitement over this remarkable season and these thrilling players dies down a bit, Todd and the trustees need to talk this over.

They need to determine — regardless of Coach John Calipari's skill at recruiting the rising stars — just how much they want the basketball program to become a one-year training camp for the NBA. And they need to weigh what consequences that could have, fairly or unfairly, on building a reputation as a top research university.

Whatever the solution, this problem can't be allowed to fester and undermine, in the most public way, the university's central mission.

Read more: http://www.kentucky.com/2010/04/28/1242420.html#ixzz0mPAUS3oj

Nick Anderson Joins Others In Giving Us The Arizona "Immigration" Law Laughs For Today. LOL.

But Eugene Robinson Concludes That Arizona's "Immigration" Law Addresses "… Real Problem, Wrong Answer", And I AGREE!

…Real problem, wrong answer
By Eugene Robinson

WASHINGTON — Arizona's draconian new immigration law is an abomination — racist, arbitrary, oppressive, mean-spirited, unjust. About the only hopeful thing that can be said is that the legislation, which Republican Gov. Jan Brewer signed Friday, goes so outrageously far that it may well be unconstitutional.

Brewer, who caved to xenophobic pressures that previous governors had the backbone to resist, should be ashamed of herself. The law requires police to question anyone they “reasonably suspect” of being an undocumented immigrant — a mandate for racial profiling on a massive scale. Legal immigrants will be required to carry papers proving they have a right to be in the United States. Those without documentation can be charged with the crime of trespassing and jailed for up to six months.

Activists for Latino and immigrant rights — and supporters of sane governance — held weekend rallies denouncing the new law and vowing to do everything they can to overturn it. But where was the tea party crowd? Isn't the whole premise of the tea party movement that overreaching government poses a grave threat to individual freedom? It seems to me that a law allowing individuals to be detained and interrogated on a whim — and requiring legal residents to carry identification documents, as in a police state — would send the tea partiers into apoplexy. Or is there some kind of exception if the people whose freedoms are being taken away happen to have brown skin and might speak Spanish?

And what is the deal with Sen. John McCain? The self-proclaimed practitioner of “straight talk” was once a passionate advocate of sensible, moderate immigration reform. Now, facing a primary challenge from the right, he says he supports the new law, which is as far from sensible and moderate as it could possibly be. Are six more years in the Senate really worth abandoning what seemed like bedrock principles? Or were those principles always situational?

Let me interrupt this tirade to point out that while Arizona has unquestionably done the wrong thing, it's understandable that exasperated officials believed they had to do something . Immigration policy and border security are federal responsibilities, and Washington has failed miserably to address what Arizonans legitimately see as a genuine crisis.

Arizona has become the preferred point of entry for undocumented workers, and an estimated 460,000 are in the state — settling down, or just passing through — at any given time. I have driven down to the border and watched as authorities tried to pick out trucks and vans that might be transporting people without papers. I've spent a morning at the Mexican consulate in Phoenix, which is usually crowded with recent immigrants; only the most naive observer would think that all of them, or even most of them, were in the country legally. The influx imposes an unfair burden on the state, and for years Arizonans have been imploring federal officials to do something about immigration reform and border control — to no avail.

But the new law isn't a solution. On the contrary, it will make the problems worse. Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon — who wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post calling proponents of the law “bitter, small-minded and full of hate” — hopes to file a lawsuit against the state arguing that local police are now being forced to fulfill a federal responsibility. [Mayor Gordon's article appeared in Tuesday's Courier-Journal , and it appears online at [[i]]www.courier-journal.com/opinion.][[/i]]

One of the concrete problems with the law treating undocumented immigrants as criminals is that it gives those without papers a powerful incentive to stay as far away from police as possible. This will only make it more difficult for local police to investigate crimes and track down fugitive offenders, because no potential witness who is undocumented will come forward.

And how are police supposed to decide whom they “reasonably suspect” of being in the country illegally? Since the great majority of undocumented immigrants in Arizona are from Mexico, aggressive enforcement of the law would seem to require demanding identification from anybody who looks kind of Mexican. Or maybe just hassling those who look kind of Mexican and also kind of poor. Or maybe anyone who dares to visit the Mexican consulate.

Arizona is dealing with a real problem and is right to demand that Washington provide a solution. But the new immigration law isn't a solution at all. It's more like an act of vengeance. The law makes Latino citizens and legal residents vulnerable to arbitrary harassment — relegating them to second-class status — and it is an utter disgrace.

Eugene Robinson is a Washington Post columnist. His e-mail address is eugenerobinson@washpost.com.

And Cal Thomas Gushes That "…'Illegal' Again Has Meaning" -- And He Makes BETTER Sense Than George Will.

…'Illegal' again has meaning
By Cal Thomas

Arizona has decided that if the federal government will not live up to its responsibility to control the border, it will. Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, signed a bill that allows police officers to inquire about a person's immigration status if there is reason to suspect that individual might be an illegal immigrant. The governor correctly noted that the new law “represents another tool for our state to use as we work to solve a crisis we did not create and the federal government has refused to fix.”

The latest example of that failure is the Obama administration's refusal to finish the border fence begun with some reluctance by the Bush administration.

Critics of the new law, who plan a court challenge, ask how police officers will “know” by observation whether someone might be in the country illegally. Police officers regularly make judgment calls about suspicious behavior, whether it involves erratic driving, passing small packets on the street in drug-infested neighborhoods or searching cars for drugs and alcohol.

“Immigrant groups” are upset that in Arizona people might actually be forced to comply with the law or face deportation.

Let's get something straight. The failure to protect America's southern border has been a bipartisan effort. Democrats want more illegal immigrants in the country because they are a potential source of votes they hope will contribute to a permanent Democratic majority. Republicans and their donors want more illegal immigrants in America because they are a source of cheap labor. Once you understand this, you can ignore much of the talk about “human rights.”

If a state, or nation, has laws it will not enforce for political reasons, it mocks both the law and politics, to say nothing of the cultural order. If the language of laws has no meaning other than what lawmakers assign to them after a law is enacted, it is proof that we have arrived in a kind of legal “Wonderland” in which Alice is told by Humpty Dumpty, “When I use a word ... it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.” To which Alice responds, “The question is ... whether you can make words mean so many different things.” Politicians constantly try.

So what does the “illegal” in illegal immigration mean? For that matter, what does the less judgmental and legally vacuous “undocumented alien” mean? If something is illegal, according to dictionary.com, it is “forbidden by law or statute.” If one is “undocumented” that person lacks “the needed documents, as for permission to live or work in a foreign country.”

Sociological and political considerations notwithstanding, the law should be the law and its requirements ought to be universally adhered to, or punishment imposed for their violation.

According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform, as of 2007, there are about 475,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona straining an already overburdened economy. Taxpaying citizens must underwrite the cost of schooling for their children, as well as visits to emergency rooms. In California, several hospitals have had to close because they could no longer afford to give free care to noncitizens. Gangs in Arizona operate under the command of drug lords in Mexico. This and other criminal activity threaten the peace and security of Arizonans and potentially all American citizens. Is this something that must be endured for the sake of “human rights groups” and “immigration rights groups,” or is it long past time to slow the flow?

The Arizona legislature and Governor Brewer have correctly chosen to slow the flow. They realize a state and a nation unwilling to protect their borders cannot hope to preserve qualities that have made this country what it is but won't be for much longer if we permit this illegal invasion to continue.

Cal Thomas is a columnist with Tribune Media Services. His e-mail address is tmseditors@tribune.com.

But Shockingly George Will Defends Arizona's "REASONABLY SUSPICIOUS" "Immigration" Law. This Is All SHAMEFULLY Amazing To Me.

Arizona immigration law defended…
By GEORGE F. WILL

WASHINGTON — “Misguided and irresponsible” is how Arizona's new law pertaining to illegal immigration is characterized by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She represents San Francisco, which calls itself a “sanctuary city,” an exercise in exhibitionism that means it will be essentially uncooperative regarding enforcement of immigration laws. Yet as many states go to court to challenge the constitutionality of the federal mandate to buy health insurance, scandalized liberals invoke 19th-century specters of “nullification” and “interposition,” anarchy and disunion. Strange.

It is passing strange for federal officials, including the president, to accuse Arizona of irresponsibility while the federal government is refusing to fulfill its responsibility to control the nation's borders. Such control is an essential attribute of national sovereignty. America is the only developed nation that has a 2,000-mile border with a developing nation, and the government's refusal to control that border is why there are an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona and why the nation, sensibly insisting on first things first, resists “comprehensive” immigration reform.

Arizona's law makes what is already a federal offense — being in the country illegally — a state offense. Some critics seem not to understand Arizona's right to assert concurrent jurisdiction. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund attacks Gov. Jan Brewer's character and motives, saying she “caved to the radical fringe.” This poses a semantic puzzle: Can the large majority of Arizonans who support the law be a “fringe” of their state?

Popularity makes no law invulnerable to invalidation. Americans accept judicial supervision of their democracy — judicial review of popular but possibly unconstitutional statutes — because they know that if the Constitution is truly to constitute the nation, it must trump some majority preferences. The Constitution, the Supreme Court has said, puts certain things “beyond the reach of majorities.”

But Arizona's statute is not presumptively unconstitutional merely because it says that police officers are now required to try to make “a reasonable attempt” to determine the status of a person “where reasonable suspicion exists” that the person is here illegally. The fact that the meaning of “reasonable” will not be obvious in many contexts does not make the law obviously too vague to stand. The Bill of Rights — the Fourth Amendment — proscribes “unreasonable searches and seizures.” What “reasonable” means in practice is still being refined by case law — as is that amendment's stipulation that no warrants shall be issued “but upon probable cause.” There has also been careful case-by-case refinement of the familiar and indispensable concept of “reasonable suspicion.”

Brewer says, “We must enforce the law evenly, and without regard to skin color, accent or social status.” Because the nation thinks as Brewer does, airport passenger screeners wand Norwegian grandmothers. This is an acceptable, even admirable, homage to the virtue of “evenness” as we seek to deter violence by a few, mostly Middle Eastern, young men.

Some critics say Arizona's law is unconstitutional because the 14th Amendment's guarantee of “equal protection of the laws” prevents the government from basing action on the basis of race. Liberals, however, cannot comfortably make this argument because they support racial set-asides in government contracting, racial preferences in college admissions, racial gerrymandering of legislative districts and other aspects of a racial spoils system. Although liberals are appalled by racial profiling, some seem to think vocational profiling (police officers are insensitive incompetents) is merely intellectual efficiency, as is state profiling (Arizonans are xenophobic).

Probably 30 percent of Arizona's residents are Hispanics. Arizona police officers, like officers everywhere, have enough to do without being required to seek arrests by violating settled law with random stops of people who speak Spanish. In the practice of the complex and demanding craft of policing, good officers — the vast majority — routinely make nuanced judgments about when there is probable cause for acting on reasonable suspicions of illegality.

Arizona's law might give the nation information about whether judicious enforcement discourages illegality. If so, it is a worthwhile experiment in federalism.

Non-Hispanic Arizonans of all sorts live congenially with all sorts of persons of Hispanic descent. These include some whose ancestors got to Arizona before statehood — some even before it was a territory. They were in America before most Americans' ancestors arrived. Arizonans should not be judged disdainfully and from a distance by people whose closest contacts with Hispanics are with fine men and women who trim their lawns and put plates in front of them at restaurants, not with illegal immigrants passing through their backyards at 3 a.m.

George F. Will is a syndicated columnist with The Washington Post. His e-mail address is georgewill@washpost.com.

Even The Normally Very Partisan Karl Rove Sees Constitutional Problems With Arizona's "Immigration" Law. Read More Below.

Rove says he has ‘problems’ with AZ immigration law
By Christine Show, Orlando Sentinel

THE VILLAGES – Karl Rove, chief political strategist for former President George W. Bush, today questioned a controversial new Arizona law designed to cut down on illegal immigration by making it a crime to not produce proof of citizenship when a law enforcement officer demands it.

Rove, speaking to a crowd of about 500 at the mammoth senior community as part of a national book tour, said that while the law is understandable, it does present difficulties. The law has become the nation’s toughest anti-immigration measure.

“I think there is going to be some constitutional problems with the bill,” he said to the standing-room-only crowd at the Colony Cottage Recreation Center. “I wished they hadn’t passed it, in a way.”

Still, Rove, who was promoting his book Courage and Consequence: My Life as a Conservative in the Fight, objected to comments by critics including President Barack Obama that the law will lead to problems such as racial profiling by police.

“These are modern police forces that respect the rights of people in their communities,” Rove said. “They’re going to do it on the basis of reasonable suspicion that these people are here illegally, like they’re driving a car with a Mexican license plate or they can’t speak English or they don’t have a drivers license.”

However, Rove said there may be other ways to tackle the issue.

“At the end of the day … I think there are better tools,” he said. “But I understand where it’s coming from.”

Dressed in a green-checkered shirt and khakis, Rove touched on a number of national topics during a speech that lasted about 1 1/2 hours, including health-care reform, the tea-party movement, global warming and the relationship between the United States and Israel.

He spoke about his time in the White House working alongside Bush, including his experiences on Sept. 11, 2001, when he searched frantically for a TV at a Sarasota elementary school to learn more about the terrorist attacks that occurred while the president was visiting a classroom.

Later on Air Force One he recalled seeing the smoking Pentagon, one of the targets of the attacks, and noted that Bush said to him, “Take a look. You’re looking at the face of war in the 21st century.”

Villages resident Dick Doumeng, 75, who spends part of the year on St. Thomas in the Virgin Islands, thanked Rove for his national-security efforts in the years following the 9/11.

“That was a rare opportunity,” Doumeng said. “I wanted to thank him and President Bush for the courage they had. This is the closest I’m ever going to get to the life of the president.”

Have You Read Arizona's New "REASONABLY SUSPICIOUS" Immigration Law? Well, Here It Is. Enjoy!

State of Arizona
Senate
Forty-ninth Legislature
Second Regular Session
2010
SENATE BILL 1070
AN ACT
AMENDING TITLE 11, CHAPTER 7, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING ARTICLE 8;
AMENDING TITLE 13, CHAPTER 15, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING SECTION
13-1509; AMENDING SECTION 13-2319, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES; AMENDING TITLE
13, CHAPTER 29, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING SECTIONS 13-2928 AND
13-2929; AMENDING SECTIONS 23-212, 23-212.01, 23-214 AND 28-3511, ARIZONA
REVISED STATUTES; AMENDING TITLE 41, CHAPTER 12, ARTICLE 2, ARIZONA REVISED
STATUTES, BY ADDING SECTION 41-1724; RELATING TO UNLAWFULLY PRESENT ALIENS.
(TEXT OF BILL BEGINS ON NEXT PAGE)
S.B. 1070
- 1 -
1 Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
2 Section 1. Intent
3 The legislature finds that there is a compelling interest in the
4 cooperative enforcement of federal immigration laws throughout all of
5 Arizona. The legislature declares that the intent of this act is to make
6 attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local
7 government agencies in Arizona. The provisions of this act are intended to
8 work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of
9 aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United
10 States.
11 Sec. 2. Title 11, chapter 7, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by
12 adding article 8, to read:
13 ARTICLE 8. ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS
14 11-1051. Cooperation and assistance in enforcement of
15 immigration laws; indemnification
16 A. NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR
17 OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY ADOPT A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR
18 RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL
19 EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.
20 B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
27 C. IF AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IS
28 CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF STATE OR LOCAL LAW, ON DISCHARGE FROM
29 IMPRISONMENT OR ASSESSMENT OF ANY FINE THAT IS IMPOSED, THE ALIEN SHALL BE
30 TRANSFERRED IMMEDIATELY TO THE CUSTODY OF THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND
31 CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION.
32 D. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY MAY
33 SECURELY TRANSPORT AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES
34 AND WHO IS IN THE AGENCY'S CUSTODY TO A FEDERAL FACILITY IN THIS STATE OR TO
35 ANY OTHER POINT OF TRANSFER INTO FEDERAL CUSTODY THAT IS OUTSIDE THE
36 JURISDICTION OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.
37 E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON
38 IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED
39 ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.
40 F. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN FEDERAL LAW, OFFICIALS OR AGENCIES OF THIS
41 STATE AND COUNTIES, CITIES, TOWNS AND OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THIS
42 STATE MAY NOT BE PROHIBITED OR IN ANY WAY BE RESTRICTED FROM SENDING,
43 RECEIVING OR MAINTAINING INFORMATION RELATING TO THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF
44 ANY INDIVIDUAL OR EXCHANGING THAT INFORMATION WITH ANY OTHER FEDERAL, STATE
45 OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY FOR THE FOLLOWING OFFICIAL PURPOSES:
S.B. 1070
- 2 -
1 1. DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR ANY PUBLIC BENEFIT, SERVICE OR LICENSE
2 PROVIDED BY ANY FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
3 STATE.
4 2. VERIFYING ANY CLAIM OF RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE IF DETERMINATION OF
5 RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE IS REQUIRED UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS STATE OR A JUDICIAL
6 ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO A CIVIL OR CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IN THIS STATE.
7 3. CONFIRMING THE IDENTITY OF ANY PERSON WHO IS DETAINED.
8 4. IF THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN, DETERMINING WHETHER THE PERSON IS IN
9 COMPLIANCE WITH THE FEDERAL REGISTRATION LAWS PRESCRIBED BY TITLE II, CHAPTER
10 7 OF THE FEDERAL IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT.
11 G. A PERSON MAY BRING AN ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE ANY
12 OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL
13 SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ADOPTS OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR
14 RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL
15 EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW. IF THERE IS A JUDICIAL FINDING THAT AN
16 ENTITY HAS VIOLATED THIS SECTION, THE COURT SHALL ORDER ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
17 1. THAT THE PERSON WHO BROUGHT THE ACTION RECOVER COURT COSTS AND
18 ATTORNEY FEES.
19 2. THAT THE ENTITY PAY A CIVIL PENALTY OF NOT LESS THAN ONE THOUSAND
20 DOLLARS AND NOT MORE THAN FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR EACH DAY THAT THE POLICY
21 HAS REMAINED IN EFFECT AFTER THE FILING OF AN ACTION PURSUANT TO THIS
22 SUBSECTION.
23 H. A COURT SHALL COLLECT THE CIVIL PENALTY PRESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION G
24 AND REMIT THE CIVIL PENALTY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY FOR DEPOSIT IN
25 THE GANG AND IMMIGRATION INTELLIGENCE TEAM ENFORCEMENT MISSION FUND
26 ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 41-1724.
27 I. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IS INDEMNIFIED BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT
28 OFFICER'S AGENCY AGAINST REASONABLE COSTS AND EXPENSES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY
29 FEES, INCURRED BY THE OFFICER IN CONNECTION WITH ANY ACTION, SUIT OR
30 PROCEEDING BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION TO WHICH THE OFFICER MAY BE A
31 PARTY BY REASON OF THE OFFICER BEING OR HAVING BEEN A MEMBER OF THE LAW
32 ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, EXCEPT IN RELATION TO MATTERS IN WHICH THE OFFICER IS
33 ADJUDGED TO HAVE ACTED IN BAD FAITH.
34 J. THIS SECTION SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH
35 FEDERAL LAWS REGULATING IMMIGRATION, PROTECTING THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF ALL
36 PERSONS AND RESPECTING THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF UNITED STATES
37 CITIZENS.
38 Sec. 3. Title 13, chapter 15, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by
39 adding section 13-1509, to read:
40 13-1509. Trespassing by illegal aliens; assessment; exception;
41 classification
42 A. IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF
43 TRESPASSING IF THE PERSON IS BOTH:
44 1. PRESENT ON ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LAND IN THIS STATE.
45 2. IN VIOLATION OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a).
S.B. 1070
- 3 -
1 B. IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS SECTION, THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF AN
2 ALIEN'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE DETERMINED BY EITHER:
3 1. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO IS AUTHORIZED BY THE FEDERAL
4 GOVERNMENT TO VERIFY OR ASCERTAIN AN ALIEN'S IMMIGRATION STATUS.
5 2. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY COMMUNICATING WITH THE UNITED
6 STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES BORDER
7 PROTECTION PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
8 C. A PERSON WHO IS SENTENCED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION IS NOT ELIGIBLE
9 FOR SUSPENSION OR COMMUTATION OF SENTENCE OR RELEASE ON ANY BASIS UNTIL THE
10 SENTENCE IMPOSED IS SERVED.
11 D. IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER PENALTY PRESCRIBED BY LAW, THE COURT SHALL
12 ORDER THE PERSON TO PAY JAIL COSTS AND AN ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT IN THE
13 FOLLOWING AMOUNTS:
14 1. AT LEAST FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS FOR A FIRST VIOLATION.
15 2. TWICE THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED IN PARAGRAPH 1 OF THIS SUBSECTION IF THE
16 PERSON WAS PREVIOUSLY SUBJECT TO AN ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION.
17 E. A COURT SHALL COLLECT THE ASSESSMENTS PRESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION D OF
18 THIS SECTION AND REMIT THE ASSESSMENTS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,
19 WHICH SHALL ESTABLISH A SPECIAL SUBACCOUNT FOR THE MONIES IN THE ACCOUNT
20 ESTABLISHED FOR THE GANG AND IMMIGRATION INTELLIGENCE TEAM ENFORCEMENT
21 MISSION APPROPRIATION. MONIES IN THE SPECIAL SUBACCOUNT ARE SUBJECT TO
22 LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATION FOR DISTRIBUTION FOR GANG AND IMMIGRATION
23 ENFORCEMENT AND FOR COUNTY JAIL REIMBURSEMENT COSTS RELATING TO ILLEGAL
24 IMMIGRATION.
25 F. THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO A PERSON WHO MAINTAINS AUTHORIZATION
26 FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO REMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES.
27 G. A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS A CLASS 1 MISDEMEANOR, EXCEPT THAT A
28 VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS:
29 1. A CLASS 3 FELONY IF THE PERSON VIOLATES THIS SECTION WHILE IN
30 POSSESSION OF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
31 (a) A DANGEROUS DRUG AS DEFINED IN SECTION 13-3401.
32 (b) PRECURSOR CHEMICALS THAT ARE USED IN THE MANUFACTURING OF
33 METHAMPHETAMINE IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 13-3404.01.
34 (c) A DEADLY WEAPON OR A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT, AS DEFINED IN SECTION
35 13-105.
36 (d) PROPERTY THAT IS USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMMITTING AN ACT OF
37 TERRORISM AS PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 13-2308.01.
38 2. A CLASS 4 FELONY IF THE PERSON EITHER:
39 (a) IS CONVICTED OF A SECOND OR SUBSEQUENT VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION.
40 (b) WITHIN SIXTY MONTHS BEFORE THE VIOLATION, HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM
41 THE UNITED STATES PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1229a OR HAS
42 ACCEPTED A VOLUNTARY REMOVAL FROM THE UNITED STATES PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED
43 STATES CODE SECTION 1229c.
S.B. 1070
- 4 -
1 Sec. 4. Section 13-2319, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
2 13-2319. Smuggling; classification; definitions
3 A. It is unlawful for a person to intentionally engage in the
4 smuggling of human beings for profit or commercial purpose.
5 B. A violation of this section is a class 4 felony.
6 C. Notwithstanding subsection B of this section, a violation of this
7 section:
8 1. Is a class 2 felony if the human being who is smuggled is under
9 eighteen years of age and is not accompanied by a family member over eighteen
10 years of age or the offense involved the use of a deadly weapon or dangerous
11 instrument.
12 2. Is a class 3 felony if the offense involves the use or threatened
13 use of deadly physical force and the person is not eligible for suspension of
14 sentence, probation, pardon or release from confinement on any other basis
15 except pursuant to section 31-233, subsection A or B until the sentence
16 imposed by the court is served, the person is eligible for release pursuant
17 to section 41-1604.07 or the sentence is commuted.
18 D. Chapter 10 of this title does not apply to a violation of
19 subsection C, paragraph 1 of this section.
20 E. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A PEACE OFFICER MAY LAWFULLY STOP
21 ANY PERSON WHO IS OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE IF THE OFFICER HAS REASONABLE
22 SUSPICION TO BELIEVE THE PERSON IS IN VIOLATION OF ANY CIVIL TRAFFIC LAW AND
23 THIS SECTION.
24 E. F. For the purposes of this section:
25 1. "Family member" means the person's parent, grandparent, sibling or
26 any other person who is related to the person by consanguinity or affinity to
27 the second degree.
28 2. "Procurement of transportation" means any participation in or
29 facilitation of transportation and includes:
30 (a) Providing services that facilitate transportation including travel
31 arrangement services or money transmission services.
32 (b) Providing property that facilitates transportation, including a
33 weapon, a vehicle or other means of transportation or false identification,
34 or selling, leasing, renting or otherwise making available a drop house as
35 defined in section 13-2322.
36 3. "Smuggling of human beings" means the transportation, procurement
37 of transportation or use of property or real property by a person or an
38 entity that knows or has reason to know that the person or persons
39 transported or to be transported are not United States citizens, permanent
40 resident aliens or persons otherwise lawfully in this state or have attempted
41 to enter, entered or remained in the United States in violation of law.
S.B. 1070
- 5 -
1 Sec. 5. Title 13, chapter 29, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by
2 adding sections 13-2928 and 13-2929, to read:
3 13-2928. Unlawful stopping to hire and pick up passengers for
4 work; unlawful application, solicitation or
5 employment; classification; definitions
6 A. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR AN OCCUPANT OF A MOTOR VEHICLE THAT IS STOPPED
7 ON A STREET, ROADWAY OR HIGHWAY TO ATTEMPT TO HIRE OR HIRE AND PICK UP
8 PASSENGERS FOR WORK AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION IF THE MOTOR VEHICLE BLOCKS OR
9 IMPEDES THE NORMAL MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC.
10 B. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON TO ENTER A MOTOR VEHICLE THAT IS
11 STOPPED ON A STREET, ROADWAY OR HIGHWAY IN ORDER TO BE HIRED BY AN OCCUPANT
12 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE AND TO BE TRANSPORTED TO WORK AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION IF
13 THE MOTOR VEHICLE BLOCKS OR IMPEDES THE NORMAL MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC.
14 C. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED
15 STATES AND WHO IS AN UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN TO KNOWINGLY APPLY FOR WORK, SOLICIT
16 WORK IN A PUBLIC PLACE OR PERFORM WORK AS AN EMPLOYEE OR INDEPENDENT
17 CONTRACTOR IN THIS STATE.
18 D. A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS A CLASS 1 MISDEMEANOR.
19 E. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION:
20 1. "SOLICIT" MEANS VERBAL OR NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION BY A GESTURE OR A
21 NOD THAT WOULD INDICATE TO A REASONABLE PERSON THAT A PERSON IS WILLING TO BE
22 EMPLOYED.
23 2. "UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN" MEANS AN ALIEN WHO DOES NOT HAVE THE LEGAL
24 RIGHT OR AUTHORIZATION UNDER FEDERAL LAW TO WORK IN THE UNITED STATES AS
25 DESCRIBED IN 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1324a(h)(3).
26 13-2929. Unlawful transporting, moving, concealing, harboring
27 or shielding of unlawful aliens; vehicle
28 impoundment; classification
29 A. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON WHO IS IN VIOLATION OF A CRIMINAL
30 OFFENSE TO:
31 1. TRANSPORT OR MOVE OR ATTEMPT TO TRANSPORT OR MOVE AN ALIEN IN THIS
32 STATE IN A MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION IF THE PERSON KNOWS OR RECKLESSLY
33 DISREGARDS THE FACT THAT THE ALIEN HAS COME TO, HAS ENTERED OR REMAINS IN THE
34 UNITED STATES IN VIOLATION OF LAW.
35 2. CONCEAL, HARBOR OR SHIELD OR ATTEMPT TO CONCEAL, HARBOR OR SHIELD
36 AN ALIEN FROM DETECTION IN ANY PLACE IN THIS STATE, INCLUDING ANY BUILDING OR
37 ANY MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION, IF THE PERSON KNOWS OR RECKLESSLY DISREGARDS THE
38 FACT THAT THE ALIEN HAS COME TO, HAS ENTERED OR REMAINS IN THE UNITED STATES
39 IN VIOLATION OF LAW.
40 3. ENCOURAGE OR INDUCE AN ALIEN TO COME TO OR RESIDE IN THIS STATE IF
41 THE PERSON KNOWS OR RECKLESSLY DISREGARDS THE FACT THAT SUCH COMING TO,
42 ENTERING OR RESIDING IN THIS STATE IS OR WILL BE IN VIOLATION OF LAW.
43 B. A MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION THAT IS USED IN THE COMMISSION OF A
44 VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS SUBJECT TO MANDATORY VEHICLE IMMOBILIZATION OR
45 IMPOUNDMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 28-3511.
S.B. 1070
- 6 -
1 C. A PERSON WHO VIOLATES THIS SECTION IS GUILTY OF A CLASS 1
2 MISDEMEANOR AND IS SUBJECT TO A FINE OF AT LEAST ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS, EXCEPT
3 THAT A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION THAT INVOLVES TEN OR MORE ILLEGAL ALIENS IS
4 A CLASS 6 FELONY AND THE PERSON IS SUBJECT TO A FINE OF AT LEAST ONE THOUSAND
5 DOLLARS FOR EACH ALIEN WHO IS INVOLVED.
6 Sec. 6. Section 23-212, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
7 23-212. Knowingly employing unauthorized aliens; prohibition;
8 false and frivolous complaints; violation;
9 classification; license suspension and revocation;
10 affirmative defense
11 A. An employer shall not knowingly employ an unauthorized alien. If,
12 in the case when an employer uses a contract, subcontract or other
13 independent contractor agreement to obtain the labor of an alien in this
14 state, the employer knowingly contracts with an unauthorized alien or with a
15 person who employs or contracts with an unauthorized alien to perform the
16 labor, the employer violates this subsection.
17 B. The attorney general shall prescribe a complaint form for a person
18 to allege a violation of subsection A of this section. The complainant shall
19 not be required to list the complainant's social security number on the
20 complaint form or to have the complaint form notarized. On receipt of a
21 complaint on a prescribed complaint form that an employer allegedly knowingly
22 employs an unauthorized alien, the attorney general or county attorney shall
23 investigate whether the employer has violated subsection A of this section.
24 If a complaint is received but is not submitted on a prescribed complaint
25 form, the attorney general or county attorney may investigate whether the
26 employer has violated subsection A of this section. This subsection shall
27 not be construed to prohibit the filing of anonymous complaints that are not
28 submitted on a prescribed complaint form. The attorney general or county
29 attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race,
30 color or national origin. A complaint that is submitted to a county attorney
31 shall be submitted to the county attorney in the county in which the alleged
32 unauthorized alien is or was employed by the employer. The county sheriff or
33 any other local law enforcement agency may assist in investigating a
34 complaint. When investigating a complaint, the attorney general or county
35 attorney shall verify the work authorization of the alleged unauthorized
36 alien with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States Code section
37 1373(c). A state, county or local official shall not attempt to
38 independently make a final determination on whether an alien is authorized to
39 work in the United States. An alien's immigration status or work
40 authorization status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant
41 to 8 United States Code section 1373(c). A person who knowingly files a
42 false and frivolous complaint under this subsection is guilty of a class 3
43 misdemeanor.
S.B. 1070
- 7 -
1 C. If, after an investigation, the attorney general or county attorney
2 determines that the complaint is not false and frivolous:
3 1. The attorney general or county attorney shall notify the United
4 States immigration and customs enforcement of the unauthorized alien.
5 2. The attorney general or county attorney shall notify the local law
6 enforcement agency of the unauthorized alien.
7 3. The attorney general shall notify the appropriate county attorney
8 to bring an action pursuant to subsection D of this section if the complaint
9 was originally filed with the attorney general.
10 D. An action for a violation of subsection A of this section shall be
11 brought against the employer by the county attorney in the county where the
12 unauthorized alien employee is or was employed by the employer. The county
13 attorney shall not bring an action against any employer for any violation of
14 subsection A of this section that occurs before January 1, 2008. A second
15 violation of this section shall be based only on an unauthorized alien who is
16 or was employed by the employer after an action has been brought for a
17 violation of subsection A of this section or section 23-212.01, subsection A.
18 E. For any action in superior court under this section, the court
19 shall expedite the action, including assigning the hearing at the earliest
20 practicable date.
21 F. On a finding of a violation of subsection A of this section:
22 1. For a first violation, as described in paragraph 3 of this
23 subsection, the court:
24 (a) Shall order the employer to terminate the employment of all
25 unauthorized aliens.
26 (b) Shall order the employer to be subject to a three year
27 probationary period for the business location where the unauthorized alien
28 performed work. During the probationary period the employer shall file
29 quarterly reports in the form provided in section 23-722.01 with the county
30 attorney of each new employee who is hired by the employer at the business
31 location where the unauthorized alien performed work.
32 (c) Shall order the employer to file a signed sworn affidavit with the
33 county attorney within three business days after the order is issued. The
34 affidavit shall state that the employer has terminated the employment of all
35 unauthorized aliens in this state and that the employer will not
36 intentionally or knowingly employ an unauthorized alien in this state. The
37 court shall order the appropriate agencies to suspend all licenses subject to
38 this subdivision that are held by the employer if the employer fails to file
39 a signed sworn affidavit with the county attorney within three business days
40 after the order is issued. All licenses that are suspended under this
41 subdivision shall remain suspended until the employer files a signed sworn
42 affidavit with the county attorney. Notwithstanding any other law, on filing
43 of the affidavit the suspended licenses shall be reinstated immediately by
44 the appropriate agencies. For the purposes of this subdivision, the licenses
45 that are subject to suspension under this subdivision are all licenses that
S.B. 1070
- 8 -
1 are held by the employer specific to the business location where the
2 unauthorized alien performed work. If the employer does not hold a license
3 specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed
4 work, but a license is necessary to operate the employer's business in
5 general, the licenses that are subject to suspension under this subdivision
6 are all licenses that are held by the employer at the employer's primary
7 place of business. On receipt of the court's order and notwithstanding any
8 other law, the appropriate agencies shall suspend the licenses according to
9 the court's order. The court shall send a copy of the court's order to the
10 attorney general and the attorney general shall maintain the copy pursuant to
11 subsection G of this section.
12 (d) May order the appropriate agencies to suspend all licenses
13 described in subdivision (c) of this paragraph that are held by the employer
14 for not to exceed ten business days. The court shall base its decision to
15 suspend under this subdivision on any evidence or information submitted to it
16 during the action for a violation of this subsection and shall consider the
17 following factors, if relevant:
18 (i) The number of unauthorized aliens employed by the employer.
19 (ii) Any prior misconduct by the employer.
20 (iii) The degree of harm resulting from the violation.
21 (iv) Whether the employer made good faith efforts to comply with any
22 applicable requirements.
23 (v) The duration of the violation.
24 (vi) The role of the directors, officers or principals of the employer
25 in the violation.
26 (vii) Any other factors the court deems appropriate.
27 2. For a second violation, as described in paragraph 3 of this
28 subsection, the court shall order the appropriate agencies to permanently
29 revoke all licenses that are held by the employer specific to the business
30 location where the unauthorized alien performed work. If the employer does
31 not hold a license specific to the business location where the unauthorized
32 alien performed work, but a license is necessary to operate the employer's
33 business in general, the court shall order the appropriate agencies to
34 permanently revoke all licenses that are held by the employer at the
35 employer's primary place of business. On receipt of the order and
36 notwithstanding any other law, the appropriate agencies shall immediately
37 revoke the licenses.
38 3. The violation shall be considered:
39 (a) A first violation by an employer at a business location if the
40 violation did not occur during a probationary period ordered by the court
41 under this subsection or section 23-212.01, subsection F for that employer's
42 business location.
43 (b) A second violation by an employer at a business location if the
44 violation occurred during a probationary period ordered by the court under
S.B. 1070
- 9 -
1 this subsection or section 23-212.01, subsection F for that employer's
2 business location.
3 G. The attorney general shall maintain copies of court orders that are
4 received pursuant to subsection F of this section and shall maintain a
5 database of the employers and business locations that have a first violation
6 of subsection A of this section and make the court orders available on the
7 attorney general's website.
8 H. On determining whether an employee is an unauthorized alien, the
9 court shall consider only the federal government's determination pursuant to
10 8 United States Code section 1373(c). The federal government's determination
11 creates a rebuttable presumption of the employee's lawful status. The court
12 may take judicial notice of the federal government's determination and may
13 request the federal government to provide automated or testimonial
14 verification pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c).
15 I. For the purposes of this section, proof of verifying the employment
16 authorization of an employee through the e-verify program creates a
17 rebuttable presumption that an employer did not knowingly employ an
18 unauthorized alien.
19 J. For the purposes of this section, an employer that establishes that
20 it has complied in good faith with the requirements of 8 United States Code
21 section 1324a(b) establishes an affirmative defense that the employer did not
22 knowingly employ an unauthorized alien. An employer is considered to have
23 complied with the requirements of 8 United States Code section 1324a(b),
24 notwithstanding an isolated, sporadic or accidental technical or procedural
25 failure to meet the requirements, if there is a good faith attempt to comply
26 with the requirements.
27 K. IT IS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO A VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION A OF THIS
28 SECTION THAT THE EMPLOYER WAS ENTRAPPED. TO CLAIM ENTRAPMENT, THE EMPLOYER
29 MUST ADMIT BY THE EMPLOYER'S TESTIMONY OR OTHER EVIDENCE THE SUBSTANTIAL
30 ELEMENTS OF THE VIOLATION. AN EMPLOYER WHO ASSERTS AN ENTRAPMENT DEFENSE HAS
31 THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE FOLLOWING BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE:
32 1. THE IDEA OF COMMITTING THE VIOLATION STARTED WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT
33 OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS RATHER THAN WITH THE EMPLOYER.
34 2. THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS URGED AND INDUCED THE
35 EMPLOYER TO COMMIT THE VIOLATION.
36 3. THE EMPLOYER WAS NOT PREDISPOSED TO COMMIT THE VIOLATION BEFORE THE
37 LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS URGED AND INDUCED THE EMPLOYER TO
38 COMMIT THE VIOLATION.
39 L. AN EMPLOYER DOES NOT ESTABLISH ENTRAPMENT IF THE EMPLOYER WAS
40 PREDISPOSED TO VIOLATE SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION AND THE LAW ENFORCEMENT
41 OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS MERELY PROVIDED THE EMPLOYER WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO
42 COMMIT THE VIOLATION. IT IS NOT ENTRAPMENT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR
43 THEIR AGENTS MERELY TO USE A RUSE OR TO CONCEAL THEIR IDENTITY. THE CONDUCT
44 OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND THEIR AGENTS MAY BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING
45 IF AN EMPLOYER HAS PROVEN ENTRAPMENT.
S.B. 1070
- 10 -
1 Sec. 7. Section 23-212.01, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to
2 read:
3 23-212.01. Intentionally employing unauthorized aliens;
4 prohibition; false and frivolous complaints;
5 violation; classification; license suspension and
6 revocation; affirmative defense
7 A. An employer shall not intentionally employ an unauthorized alien.
8 If, in the case when an employer uses a contract, subcontract or other
9 independent contractor agreement to obtain the labor of an alien in this
10 state, the employer intentionally contracts with an unauthorized alien or
11 with a person who employs or contracts with an unauthorized alien to perform
12 the labor, the employer violates this subsection.
13 B. The attorney general shall prescribe a complaint form for a person
14 to allege a violation of subsection A of this section. The complainant shall
15 not be required to list the complainant's social security number on the
16 complaint form or to have the complaint form notarized. On receipt of a
17 complaint on a prescribed complaint form that an employer allegedly
18 intentionally employs an unauthorized alien, the attorney general or county
19 attorney shall investigate whether the employer has violated subsection A of
20 this section. If a complaint is received but is not submitted on a
21 prescribed complaint form, the attorney general or county attorney may
22 investigate whether the employer has violated subsection A of this section.
23 This subsection shall not be construed to prohibit the filing of anonymous
24 complaints that are not submitted on a prescribed complaint form. The
25 attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are
26 based solely on race, color or national origin. A complaint that is
27 submitted to a county attorney shall be submitted to the county attorney in
28 the county in which the alleged unauthorized alien is or was employed by the
29 employer. The county sheriff or any other local law enforcement agency may
30 assist in investigating a complaint. When investigating a complaint, the
31 attorney general or county attorney shall verify the work authorization of
32 the alleged unauthorized alien with the federal government pursuant to
33 8 United States Code section 1373(c). A state, county or local official
34 shall not attempt to independently make a final determination on whether an
35 alien is authorized to work in the United States. An alien's immigration
36 status or work authorization status shall be verified with the federal
37 government pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c). A person who
38 knowingly files a false and frivolous complaint under this subsection is
39 guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor.
40 C. If, after an investigation, the attorney general or county attorney
41 determines that the complaint is not false and frivolous:
42 1. The attorney general or county attorney shall notify the United
43 States immigration and customs enforcement of the unauthorized alien.
44 2. The attorney general or county attorney shall notify the local law
45 enforcement agency of the unauthorized alien.
S.B. 1070
- 11 -
1 3. The attorney general shall notify the appropriate county attorney
2 to bring an action pursuant to subsection D of this section if the complaint
3 was originally filed with the attorney general.
4 D. An action for a violation of subsection A of this section shall be
5 brought against the employer by the county attorney in the county where the
6 unauthorized alien employee is or was employed by the employer. The county
7 attorney shall not bring an action against any employer for any violation of
8 subsection A of this section that occurs before January 1, 2008. A second
9 violation of this section shall be based only on an unauthorized alien who is
10 or was employed by the employer after an action has been brought for a
11 violation of subsection A of this section or section 23-212, subsection A.
12 E. For any action in superior court under this section, the court
13 shall expedite the action, including assigning the hearing at the earliest
14 practicable date.
15 F. On a finding of a violation of subsection A of this section:
16 1. For a first violation, as described in paragraph 3 of this
17 subsection, the court shall:
18 (a) Order the employer to terminate the employment of all unauthorized
19 aliens.
20 (b) Order the employer to be subject to a five year probationary
21 period for the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work.
22 During the probationary period the employer shall file quarterly reports in
23 the form provided in section 23-722.01 with the county attorney of each new
24 employee who is hired by the employer at the business location where the
25 unauthorized alien performed work.
26 (c) Order the appropriate agencies to suspend all licenses described
27 in subdivision (d) of this paragraph that are held by the employer for a
28 minimum of ten days. The court shall base its decision on the length of the
29 suspension under this subdivision on any evidence or information submitted to
30 it during the action for a violation of this subsection and shall consider
31 the following factors, if relevant:
32 (i) The number of unauthorized aliens employed by the employer.
33 (ii) Any prior misconduct by the employer.
34 (iii) The degree of harm resulting from the violation.
35 (iv) Whether the employer made good faith efforts to comply with any
36 applicable requirements.
37 (v) The duration of the violation.
38 (vi) The role of the directors, officers or principals of the employer
39 in the violation.
40 (vii) Any other factors the court deems appropriate.
41 (d) Order the employer to file a signed sworn affidavit with the
42 county attorney. The affidavit shall state that the employer has terminated
43 the employment of all unauthorized aliens in this state and that the employer
44 will not intentionally or knowingly employ an unauthorized alien in this
45 state. The court shall order the appropriate agencies to suspend all
S.B. 1070
- 12 -
1 licenses subject to this subdivision that are held by the employer if the
2 employer fails to file a signed sworn affidavit with the county attorney
3 within three business days after the order is issued. All licenses that are
4 suspended under this subdivision for failing to file a signed sworn affidavit
5 shall remain suspended until the employer files a signed sworn affidavit with
6 the county attorney. For the purposes of this subdivision, the licenses that
7 are subject to suspension under this subdivision are all licenses that are
8 held by the employer specific to the business location where the unauthorized
9 alien performed work. If the employer does not hold a license specific to
10 the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work, but a
11 license is necessary to operate the employer's business in general, the
12 licenses that are subject to suspension under this subdivision are all
13 licenses that are held by the employer at the employer's primary place of
14 business. On receipt of the court's order and notwithstanding any other law,
15 the appropriate agencies shall suspend the licenses according to the court's
16 order. The court shall send a copy of the court's order to the attorney
17 general and the attorney general shall maintain the copy pursuant to
18 subsection G of this section.
19 2. For a second violation, as described in paragraph 3 of this
20 subsection, the court shall order the appropriate agencies to permanently
21 revoke all licenses that are held by the employer specific to the business
22 location where the unauthorized alien performed work. If the employer does
23 not hold a license specific to the business location where the unauthorized
24 alien performed work, but a license is necessary to operate the employer's
25 business in general, the court shall order the appropriate agencies to
26 permanently revoke all licenses that are held by the employer at the
27 employer's primary place of business. On receipt of the order and
28 notwithstanding any other law, the appropriate agencies shall immediately
29 revoke the licenses.
30 3. The violation shall be considered:
31 (a) A first violation by an employer at a business location if the
32 violation did not occur during a probationary period ordered by the court
33 under this subsection or section 23-212, subsection F for that employer's
34 business location.
35 (b) A second violation by an employer at a business location if the
36 violation occurred during a probationary period ordered by the court under
37 this subsection or section 23-212, subsection F for that employer's business
38 location.
39 G. The attorney general shall maintain copies of court orders that are
40 received pursuant to subsection F of this section and shall maintain a
41 database of the employers and business locations that have a first violation
42 of subsection A of this section and make the court orders available on the
43 attorney general's website.
44 H. On determining whether an employee is an unauthorized alien, the
45 court shall consider only the federal government's determination pursuant to
S.B. 1070
- 13 -
1 8 United States Code section 1373(c). The federal government's determination
2 creates a rebuttable presumption of the employee's lawful status. The court
3 may take judicial notice of the federal government's determination and may
4 request the federal government to provide automated or testimonial
5 verification pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c).
6 I. For the purposes of this section, proof of verifying the employment
7 authorization of an employee through the e-verify program creates a
8 rebuttable presumption that an employer did not intentionally employ an
9 unauthorized alien.
10 J. For the purposes of this section, an employer that establishes that
11 it has complied in good faith with the requirements of 8 United States Code
12 section 1324a(b) establishes an affirmative defense that the employer did not
13 intentionally employ an unauthorized alien. An employer is considered to
14 have complied with the requirements of 8 United States Code section 1324a(b),
15 notwithstanding an isolated, sporadic or accidental technical or procedural
16 failure to meet the requirements, if there is a good faith attempt to comply
17 with the requirements.
18 K. IT IS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO A VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION A OF THIS
19 SECTION THAT THE EMPLOYER WAS ENTRAPPED. TO CLAIM ENTRAPMENT, THE EMPLOYER
20 MUST ADMIT BY THE EMPLOYER'S TESTIMONY OR OTHER EVIDENCE THE SUBSTANTIAL
21 ELEMENTS OF THE VIOLATION. AN EMPLOYER WHO ASSERTS AN ENTRAPMENT DEFENSE HAS
22 THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE FOLLOWING BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE:
23 1. THE IDEA OF COMMITTING THE VIOLATION STARTED WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT
24 OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS RATHER THAN WITH THE EMPLOYER.
25 2. THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS URGED AND INDUCED THE
26 EMPLOYER TO COMMIT THE VIOLATION.
27 3. THE EMPLOYER WAS NOT PREDISPOSED TO COMMIT THE VIOLATION BEFORE THE
28 LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS URGED AND INDUCED THE EMPLOYER TO
29 COMMIT THE VIOLATION.
30 L. AN EMPLOYER DOES NOT ESTABLISH ENTRAPMENT IF THE EMPLOYER WAS
31 PREDISPOSED TO VIOLATE SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION AND THE LAW ENFORCEMENT
32 OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS MERELY PROVIDED THE EMPLOYER WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO
33 COMMIT THE VIOLATION. IT IS NOT ENTRAPMENT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR
34 THEIR AGENTS MERELY TO USE A RUSE OR TO CONCEAL THEIR IDENTITY. THE CONDUCT
35 OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND THEIR AGENTS MAY BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING
36 IF AN EMPLOYER HAS PROVEN ENTRAPMENT.
37 Sec. 8. Section 23-214, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
38 23-214. Verification of employment eligibility; e-verify
39 program; economic development incentives; list of
40 registered employers
41 A. After December 31, 2007, every employer, after hiring an employee,
42 shall verify the employment eligibility of the employee through the e-verify
43 program AND SHALL KEEP A RECORD OF THE VERIFICATION FOR THE DURATION OF THE
44 EMPLOYEE'S EMPLOYMENT OR AT LEAST THREE YEARS, WHICHEVER IS LONGER.
S.B. 1070
- 14 -
1 B. In addition to any other requirement for an employer to receive an
2 economic development incentive from a government entity, the employer shall
3 register with and participate in the e-verify program. Before receiving the
4 economic development incentive, the employer shall provide proof to the
5 government entity that the employer is registered with and is participating
6 in the e-verify program. If the government entity determines that the
7 employer is not complying with this subsection, the government entity shall
8 notify the employer by certified mail of the government entity's
9 determination of noncompliance and the employer's right to appeal the
10 determination. On a final determination of noncompliance, the employer shall
11 repay all monies received as an economic development incentive to the
12 government entity within thirty days of the final determination. For the
13 purposes of this subsection:
14 1. "Economic development incentive" means any grant, loan or
15 performance-based incentive from any government entity that is awarded after
16 September 30, 2008. Economic development incentive does not include any tax
17 provision under title 42 or 43.
18 2. "Government entity" means this state and any political subdivision
19 of this state that receives and uses tax revenues.
20 C. Every three months the attorney general shall request from the
21 United States department of homeland security a list of employers from this
22 state that are registered with the e-verify program. On receipt of the list
23 of employers, the attorney general shall make the list available on the
24 attorney general's website.
25 Sec. 9. Section 28-3511, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
26 28-3511. Removal and immobilization or impoundment of vehicle
27 A. A peace officer shall cause the removal and either immobilization
28 or impoundment of a vehicle if the peace officer determines that a person is
29 driving the vehicle while any of the following applies:
30 1. The person's driving privilege is suspended or revoked for any
31 reason.
32 2. The person has not ever been issued a valid driver license or
33 permit by this state and the person does not produce evidence of ever having
34 a valid driver license or permit issued by another jurisdiction. This
35 paragraph does not apply to the operation of an implement of husbandry.
36 3. The person is subject to an ignition interlock device requirement
37 pursuant to chapter 4 of this title and the person is operating a vehicle
38 without a functioning certified ignition interlock device. This paragraph
39 does not apply to a person operating an employer's vehicle or the operation
40 of a vehicle due to a substantial emergency as defined in section 28-1464.
41 4. THE PERSON IS IN VIOLATION OF A CRIMINAL OFFENSE AND IS
42 TRANSPORTING, MOVING, CONCEALING, HARBORING OR SHIELDING OR ATTEMPTING TO
43 TRANSPORT, MOVE, CONCEAL, HARBOR OR SHIELD AN ALIEN IN THIS STATE IN A
44 VEHICLE IF THE PERSON KNOWS OR RECKLESSLY DISREGARDS THE FACT THAT THE ALIEN
45 HAS COME TO, HAS ENTERED OR REMAINS IN THE UNITED STATES IN VIOLATION OF LAW.
S.B. 1070
- 15 -
1 B. A peace officer shall cause the removal and impoundment of a
2 vehicle if the peace officer determines that a person is driving the vehicle
3 and if all of the following apply:
4 1. The person's driving privilege is canceled, suspended or revoked
5 for any reason or the person has not ever been issued a driver license or
6 permit by this state and the person does not produce evidence of ever having
7 a driver license or permit issued by another jurisdiction.
8 2. The person is not in compliance with the financial responsibility
9 requirements of chapter 9, article 4 of this title.
10 3. The person is driving a vehicle that is involved in an accident
11 that results in either property damage or injury to or death of another
12 person.
13 C. Except as provided in subsection D of this section, while a peace
14 officer has control of the vehicle the peace officer shall cause the removal
15 and either immobilization or impoundment of the vehicle if the peace officer
16 has probable cause to arrest the driver of the vehicle for a violation of
17 section 4-244, paragraph 34 or section 28-1382 or 28-1383.
18 D. A peace officer shall not cause the removal and either the
19 immobilization or impoundment of a vehicle pursuant to subsection C of this
20 section if all of the following apply:
21 1. The peace officer determines that the vehicle is currently
22 registered and that the driver or the vehicle is in compliance with the
23 financial responsibility requirements of chapter 9, article 4 of this title.
24 2. The spouse of the driver is with the driver at the time of the
25 arrest.
26 3. The peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the spouse
27 of the driver:
28 (a) Has a valid driver license.
29 (b) Is not impaired by intoxicating liquor, any drug, a vapor
30 releasing substance containing a toxic substance or any combination of
31 liquor, drugs or vapor releasing substances.
32 (c) Does not have any spirituous liquor in the spouse's body if the
33 spouse is under twenty-one years of age.
34 4. The spouse notifies the peace officer that the spouse will drive
35 the vehicle from the place of arrest to the driver's home or other place of
36 safety.
37 5. The spouse drives the vehicle as prescribed by paragraph 4 of this
38 subsection.
39 E. Except as otherwise provided in this article, a vehicle that is
40 removed and either immobilized or impounded pursuant to subsection A, B or C
41 of this section shall be immobilized or impounded for thirty days. An
42 insurance company does not have a duty to pay any benefits for charges or
43 fees for immobilization or impoundment.
44 F. The owner of a vehicle that is removed and either immobilized or
45 impounded pursuant to subsection A, B or C of this section, the spouse of the
S.B. 1070
- 16 -

Arizona's Governor, Jan Brewer, Signs A Constitutionally "SUSPICIOUS" Immigration Bill Into A Law That Is NOT "REASONABLE". Watch Video.

Joel Pett Has A Unique Way Of Making Us Laugh, So Join Me.

Lexington Herald Leader Editorial Appreciates "[Kentucky Supreme's] Ruling [Which] Upholds State Constitution: No Tax Funds For Religious University.

Ruling upholds state constitution
No tax funds for religious university

The Kentucky Supreme Court's unanimous ruling against funding a Baptist college's proposed pharmacy school with tax dollars was not surprising, but it did provide an interesting history lesson.

Kentucky's constitution clearly prohibits the allocation of public funds for educational purposes to a "church, sectarian or denominational school." That's well known.

The constitution's authors were not acting out of hostility toward Catholics, however, as is often supposed and was argued in this appeal by the University of the Cumberlands and the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.

They argued that because the ban on public funding of church schools was grounded in discrimination, it violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection and free exercise of religious expression.

There were acts of mob violence in pre-Civil War Kentucky against German and Irish Catholic immigrants, Justice Lisabeth Hughes Abramson wrote in last week's opinion. But there's no evidence of anti-Catholic sentiment 30 years later in the records of the 1890 debates that produced Kentucky's constitution.

Instead, the prohibition in Section 189 was "clearly borne of the framers desire to avoid state support of all religious institutions' schools not of any animosity toward Catholics or any other specific religion."

The General Assembly most certainly may address a need for more pharmacists, said the court, but "not by appropriating public funds to a religious institution."

In a concurring opinion, Justice Bill Cunningham went further back in time and also wrote about the state constitution's guarantee of religious freedom.

He noted that Baptists fled to this country to escape entanglements with the government and early on supported separation of church and state. He said the constitutional wall between religion and government allows this country's "kaleidoscope of faith" to flourish.

"To say that government or courts affect the whereabouts of the Almighty, such as 'putting God in schools' or 'taking God out of schools,' is not only silly but borders on sacrilege. Such a notion banners the lack of faith, rather than the essence of faith," Cunningham wrote.

Such lofty thoughts probably did not figure into Senate President David Williams' decision four years ago to slip $11 million for the University of the Cumberlands proposed pharmacy school into the state budget.

Williams was probably thinking more along the lines of election-year pork-barrel politics. The university is in his district.

Readers will remember, though, that the university quickly demonstrated the wisdom of the constitutional ban on public dollars funding religious schools by expelling a student for revealing on his MySpace.com page that he is gay.

The Supreme Court made the only possible decision in this case.

Read more: http://www.kentucky.com/2010/04/27/1240944.html#ixzz0mLFDNob4

Arizona's Immigration Frustration: The New State Law Is The Result Of A Failed National Policy. Yes, Indeed.

Arizona's Immigration Frustration
The new state law is the result of a failed national policy.

Arizona's new immigration law shows what happens when a state on the front lines of a failed immigration policy reaches the bursting point. What you get is a blunt instrument that produces lawsuits, more political polarization (if that's possible) and the risk of hostility between the local police and the public.

The law makes it a state crime to be in the U.S. without proper documents. It allows the police to stop anyone on "reasonable suspicion" that they may be in the country unlawfully and arrest them on the spot if they can't produce identity papers. The police aren't required to have a search warrant or even to suspect some illegal action has occurred before questioning a person. Traditionally the federal government has enforced immigration laws, so this is an extraordinary state criminalization of a heretofore federal authority.

Not every undocumented U.S. resident is Latino, but most are. Given that about one-third of Arizona residents are Latino, opponents of the measure fear it will raise charges of "racial profiling." The ever-helpful Al Sharpton has already announced that he's headed to Phoenix. More legal challenges are expected before the law takes effect later this summer.

The loud voices denouncing "Arizona" should understand that the results of the nation's failed immigration policies have come down on this state. Hundreds of local immigration measures have been enacted nationwide with the goal of restricting access to everything from housing to jobs to drivers' licenses. As these efforts squeezed the border in the 1990s via three-tier fencing, remote-control cameras and motion-detection devices in Texas and California, Arizona became the major, often violent, entry corridor.

Arizona's police chiefs association opposed the new law. Local enforcement agencies don't want responsibility for enforcing national immigration laws because they say it makes them less effective at their day jobs. When people in immigrant communities see the local police as deportation agents, they become less likely to report crimes and help in investigations. Conditions worsen.

Restrictionists insist, with some justification, that these laws are shrinking the illegal population. The larger reality is that border crossings track the economy. The recent downturn has meant fewer illegal entries and more immigrants going home. Before the law, Arizona's illegal population had fallen 18% in the past year.

Congressional Democrats have no intention of enacting serious immigration reform before November. President Obama is surely playing politics with the situation in Arizona for gain in the fall. He'd like to pick a fight and define Republicans as anti-Hispanic going into the election, without having to propose anything substantive.

We'd support a national immigration reform that was realistic about the fact that most of these are economic migrants who will find a way to come here in any case if this is where the jobs are. The most effective way to reduce illegal entries and defuse these tensions is to expand legal channels, including guest worker programs. This would reduce illegal immigration and free up security resources to threats from drug gangs and the like. But so long as Republicans, Democrats and Mr. Obama mainly view immigration as an electoral weapon, the nation can expect more desperate laws like Arizona's.

John David Dyche: Budget Pitfalls, Pratfalls.

Budget pitfalls, pratfalls
By John David Dyche

Recent developments in the Republican senatorial and Democrat mayoral races call the budgetary bona fides of two candidates into serious doubt. This is bad news for both since voters are extremely exercised about government debt and spending.

Republican U. S. Senate candidate Trey Grayson, long admired for policy seriousness, is airing a television ad that lambastes his GOP primary opponent Rand Paul for saying the Social Security retirement age should rise to 70. The demagogic attack is out of character for Grayson and suggests desperation after polls putting him 15 percent behind Paul.

According to the Cato Institute's Michael Tanner, at 23 percent of the federal budget Social Security is the world's largest government program. The Social Security tax is the largest levy average American families pay. Nearly 80 percent percent of Americans pay more Social Security tax than federal income tax.

George Will observes, “Nearly half of Social Security recipients choose to begin getting benefits at 62. This is a grotesque perversion of a program that was never intended to subsidize retirees for a third to a half of their adult lives.”

The Congressional Budget Office recently reported that Social Security will pay more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes this year. The Social Security Administration did not expect this dire situation to happen until 2016.

Congress has already spent a $2.5 trillion payroll tax surplus accumulated over decades. It now faces the frightening prospect of paying benefits with general fund revenues and borrowing. The crisis will worsen as Baby Boomers retire in waves.

Denial is predictable from Democrats, but Republicans seeking to reclaim a reputation for fiscal responsibility recognize that real reform requires additional increases in a retirement age already on its way up to 67. Leaders of the conservative Republican renaissance, like Wisconsin congressman Paul Ryan and Florida U. S. Senate candidate Marco Rubio, courageously advocate upping the retirement age to 70, saving money as participants work and live longer.
(2 of 2)

Ryan would make the hike gradually. Rubio would only apply it to persons now under 55. Either approach takes political courage, especially in Florida , which is full of politically powerful seniors suspicious of any Social Security changes.

Grayson should offer his own plan for facing-up to Social Security's unsustainable future before criticizing others. But he seems more concerned about whether Paul should have withheld payroll taxes from campaign workers' checks than about the system's solvency.

Grayson's website essentially ignores entitlements, the biggest driver of America 's bleak budgetary future. He provides a platitude, not a plan: “The best thing we can do for the Social Security Trust fund is to get the economy growing again, put people to work and paying payroll taxes.” Yet even robust economic growth cannot save Social Security from impending doom due to demographics.

In the Democratic primary for Metro Louisville mayor the problem is not with what frontrunner Greg Fischer said, but with what he did not say. When rival Jim King asked Fischer the amount of the annual general fund budget and rainy day fund, Fischer failed to respond. Regardless of any explanation he now offers, voters must assume that the soporific Fischer simply did not know that the general fund is about $500 million and the rainy day fund is about $65 million.

Sometimes such “gotcha” questions are unfair, but this one was about a fundamental fact that a would-be mayor should have at his fingertips. This is especially true when that candidate has been running longer than anyone and boasts of his economic expertise.

Fischer's silence also points up a significant contrast with King. Both have impressive business backgrounds, but King has also spent countless hours in committee meetings mastering the minutiae of Metro money matters. While King has helped write several city budgets, it seems that Fisher may not have even seen one.

Many people place hope in Grayson and Fischer. But both have given them good reason to reconsider.

John David Dyche is a Louisville attorney who writes a political column from time to time in Forum. He is the author of “Republican Leader: A Political Biography of Senator Mitch McConnell.” His views are his own, not those of the law firm in which he practices. Read him on-line at www.courier-journal.com; e-mail: jddyche@fmhd.com