White House Opposes House Cybersecurity Bill: It
‘Lacks Necessary Protections For Individuals’

post from ThinkProgress on 24 April 2012 03:00:03 PM. © ThinkProgress

Alec Ross, senior adviser for innovation to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

The House is expected to vote this week on the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), a new bill — sponsored by Reps. Mike Rogers (R-MI) and C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD) — meant to address cybersecurity threats by improving public-private information sharing capabilities. However, privacy rights groups and activists are criticizing the measure because its vague language could allow private companies to share personal information with government agencies without protections, such as obtaining a warrant.

Last week an Obama administration official denounced any legislation that would “sacrifice the privacy of our citizens in the name of security” but today, the White House signaled out CISPA specifically for criticism, the Guardian reports:

Ahead of the bill coming in front of the House of Representatives alongside three other cybersecurity bills, Alec Ross, a senior adviser for innovation to Hillary Clinton, reiterated the administration’s opposition to the proposals in more explicit language than previous White House statements.
“The Obama administration opposes Cispa,” he told the Guardian. “The president has called for comprehensive cybersecurity legislation. There is absolutely a need for comprehensive cybersecurity legislation.
“[But] part of what has been communicated to congressional committees is that we want legislation to come with necessary protections for individuals.”

In addition to criticism from the White House, rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union and Electronic Frontier Foundation, launched a campaign last week to raise awareness about CISPA’s lack of privacy protection.

But despite the opposition, Rogers told TPM yesterday that the House will most likely pass the bill. ?I feel pretty confident that we?ll close out the bill,? he said. ?There is a strong chance that the bill will be passed [by the House this] week.?

Rogers said he is open to making changes to the measure to satisfy its critics but claimed that there are “some people who aren?t interested in having any bill happen.”

Read The Full Article:
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/04/24/470372/obama-administration-opposes-
cispa/

Digg this

Senate Minority Leader McConnell Endorses Student
Loan Rate Fix

post from ThinkProgress on 24 April 2012 03:00:03 PM. © ThinkProgress

Speaking a press conference today, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) endorsed a proposal before Congress to extend lower interest rate for government-backed student loans. “I don’t think anybody believes this interest rate ought to be allowed to rise,” McConnell said. However, he cautioned that the cost of the extension must be offset with cuts elsewhere, and was unsure that lawmakers would be able to find and agree on them. Indeed, House Republicans have expressed pessimism about the possibility of extending the rate cuts, even as President Obama has launched a campaign around building momentum for the extension.

Read The Full Article:
http://thinkprogress.org/education/2012/04/24/470426/mcconnell-endorses-student-l
oan-fix/

Digg this

Republican Congressman Calls Female Senator A
‘Gal’

post from ThinkProgress on 24 April 2012 03:00:03 PM. © ThinkProgress

Rep. Todd Akin (R) is one of three Republicans vying for the chance to run against Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) in the fall. At a GOP candidate forum yesterday, the congressman referred to the senator as “this gal,” a title that some might consider demeaning for a sitting U.S. senator. Missouri News Horizons reports:

“Everybody always says, ‘if you don’t elect me, we can’t beat the Democrats.’ I’m not as pessimistic as John [Brunner, another Republican candidate], I think any of the three of us could beat this gal,” Akin said.

Read The Full Article:
http://thinkprogress.org/special/2012/04/24/470345/todd-akin-gal/

Digg this

Pat Robertson: Homosexuality Is An Abomination,
But Anti-Gay Bullying Is Wrong

post from ThinkProgress on 24 April 2012 03:00:03 PM. © ThinkProgress

Evangelist Pat Robertson never seems to run out of questions to answer on The 700 Club, and today he took on the topic of anti-gay bullying. Surprisingly, he criticized Christians for bullying LGBT students and suggested that “schools shouldn’t permit that,” but mentioned that he still supports calling “homosexual practices” an “abomination”:

ROBERTSON: Well I think that’s terrible and Christians shouldn’t do that. I mean, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, blah, blah, blah. You know, Christians shouldn’t do that. They ought to act in love. You might disagree, you may think that these practices are an abomination, you can think all sorts of things, but you need to love. And you need to reach out to these kids in love.

Watch it:

Robertson’s response is arguably positive ? at least relative to his usual anti-gay positions ? and if he supports anti-bullying policies that specifically enumerate protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity, then he should clarify that. But his caveat that holding anti-gay beliefs is still okay and his subtle suggestion that they should be shared (“in love”) is still problematic.

Conservatives often claim to oppose bullying, but insist that there still be room for condemning homosexuality as a matter of free speech and freedom of religion. Often, that stigma can be delivered in ways that don’t constitute the kind of violence, intimidation, or harassment that many qualify as “bullying,” but that still have severe consequences in terms of a student’s self-worth and overall mental health. If children’s safety and well-being is the primary concern, it’s impossible to truly protect them from the impact of bullying while still sentencing them to eternity in Hell.

Read The Full Article:
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/04/24/470270/pat-robertson-anti-gay-bullying/

Digg this

On Worker Rights, Apples Credibility Gap Is As
Huge As Its Profit Margins

post from ThinkProgress on 24 April 2012 03:00:03 PM. © ThinkProgress

Our guest blogger is Scott Nova, Executive Director of the Worker Rights Consortium.

Apple?s response to its current public relations crisis regarding its labor force in China has been to promise big improvements in working conditions at its supplier factories. Unfortunately, there is good reason to doubt the sincerity of those pronouncements.

After all, Apple has been promising to end labor rights violations at these factories for six years, but has neither delivered on these pledges nor done anything to hold the suppliers accountable.

Consider the example of excessive overtime, one of the glaring problems at Foxconn, Apple?s largest supplier. Workers at Foxconn?s plants in China have frequently been compelled to work upwards of 90 extra hours a month, sometimes far more, while the legal maximum in China is 36. Independent investigators have been reporting these abuses for years and auditors paid by Apple itself have just confirmed that massive overtime violations are still ongoing at Foxconn.

After these violations were first exposed in 2006, Apple issued a public report pledging corrective action. “Employees worked longer hours than permitted by our Code of Conduct,? Apple admitted, but ?[Foxconn] has enacted a policy change to enforce the weekly overtime limits?and a management system has been implemented to track compliance… Supervisors must receive approval from upper level management for any deviation.”

Apple added, ?We are committed to ensuring compliance with our Code of Conduct and will complete audits of all final assembly suppliers in 2006? In cases where a supplier’s efforts in this area do not meet our expectations, their contracts will be terminated.?

That certainly sounded like a strong stand by Apple: any supplier that did not meet the company?s labor standards would be terminated.

But as it turns out, Foxconn did not meet Apple?s standards. Instead, Foxconn continued to violate overtime laws, systematically, for the next six years (and counting). Since there are hundreds of thousands of workers making Apple products for Foxconn, the individual violations of Chinese overtime law that have been committed in the assembly of iPods, iPhones, and iPads now number in the millions.

Foxconn also violates Apple?s health and safety standards, an ongoing problem confirmed by Apple?s auditors. According to Apple policy, ?The companies we do business with must provide safe working conditions?as a condition of their contracts with us.? In 2011, Foxconn?s failure to provide safe conditions led to an aluminum dust explosion that ended the lives of four workers and seriously injured many more. An independent safety expert had this to say to the New York Times about Foxconn?s practices: “If it were terribly difficult to deal with aluminum dust, I would understand. But do you know how easy dust is to control? It’s called ventilation. We solved this problem over a century ago.?

But despite Foxconn?s contempt for Apple?s labor standards, Apple never terminated Foxconn?s contracts. Instead, it massively expanded them. Apple?s orders at Foxconn are now reportedly worth $40 billion a year, many times greater than in 2006.

Apple is no doubt aware that rewarding suppliers that brazenly violate its labor standards is not an effective strategy for getting suppliers to stop violating its labor standards. Clearly, Apple?s priorities lie elsewhere. A former Apple executive explained those priorities to the Times: ?We’ve known about labor abuses in some factories for four years, and they’re still going on. Why? Because the system works for us. Suppliers would change everything tomorrow if Apple told them they didn’t have another choice. If half of iPhones were malfunctioning, do you think Apple would let it go on for four years?”

Apple cares about labor abuses only to the extent that they cause it embarrassment and threaten its brand image. In 2006, Apple was able to limit the embarrassment with promises of reform that it obviously had no intention of keeping once public scrutiny waned. Now, in 2012, facing a burst of media and public attention that poses the greatest danger yet to its reputation, Apple is offering another round of promises. The only way these will lead to decent conditions for workers is if Apple remains under such intense public scrutiny that it has no choice but to deliver.

Read The Full Article:
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/04/24/470158/apple-workers-rights-credibili
ty/

Digg this

Midday open thread

post from Daily Kos on 24 April 2012 03:00:03 PM. © Daily Kos

Today's comic is Animation: Obama on our future (actual audio), by Scott Bateman:
Best Romney surrogate EVER! Longtime host of "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous," Robin Leach.
Not as catchy as "death panels," but the use of the phrase "job-killing regulations" is up by approximately a gaggillion percent?thanks for playing along, "liberal" media:
Between 2007 and 2011, use of the phrase ?job-killing regulations? in U.S. newspapers increased by 17,550%. Recently, committees of the 112th U.S. House of Representatives convened twenty hearings in its first twenty days that explored the link between regulations and the country?s job numbers.
Be careful what you tweet:
An Occupy Wall Street protester, arrested during last fall's mass protest on the Brooklyn Bridge, has lost his bid to stop prosecutors from subpoenaing his Twitter records. [...]
Criminal Court Judge Matthew Sciarrino Jr., who is overseeing a special courtroom dedicated to handling nearly 2,000 Occupy-related cases, ruled against Harris, saying he did not have standing to challenge the subpoena.
What a waste of oxygen (birther madness).
The allegedly pro-life Republicans should be coming out in opposition in five, four, three ...
California voters will decide in November whether to abolish the nation's largest death row by replacing capital punishment with life in prison without possibility of parole.
Secretary of State Debra Bowen's office announced Monday that supporters of the SAFE California Act of 2012 had submitted enough petition signatures to qualify their measure for November's ballot.
Nice!
Michael Berens and Ken Armstrong both had extraordinary resumes before winning the Pulitzer Prize last week. Each of the reporters for The Seattle Times had produced investigations that won a long list of prizes, including multiple IRE Awards. The work honored by the Pulitzer judges -- "Methadone and the Politics of Pain" -- had already been honored many times.
So the fact that Berens and Armstrong won wasn't a surprise. What they're doing with the prize money, however, is extraordinary. They've dedicated the $10,000 prize to pay for IRE training for fellow staffers in Seattle.
Just one more reason to avoid Wal-Mart:
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT) is the subject of a U.S. Justice Department criminal investigation into allegations of bribery in its Mexican subsidiary, according to a person familiar with the probe.
Decisions, decisions:
The outcome of the John Edwards trial could well hinge on which hard-to-believe version of reality the jury accepts.
That, and which man with an admitted history of lying ? Edwards or his former aide Andrew Young ? the jury decides is more likely to be telling the truth about what?s at play in the federal case that got under way here Monday.
Step right up and nominate a fellow-blogger, or apply for yourself, to get a Netroots Nation Scholarship:
Democracy for America and America's Voice Education Fund have teamed up to provide financial assistance to fifty outstanding bloggers and activists so they can attend this year's Netroots Nation conference.
We want to see you in Providence, so sign up today!

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/4oHMPo0xZgo/-Midday-open-thread

Digg this

GOP Nominee Running For Gabby Giffords’
Seat Says Health Care Is A ‘Privilege You Earn,’ Not A Right

post from ThinkProgress on 24 April 2012 03:00:03 PM. © ThinkProgress

Jesse Kelly, the Republican nominee in Arizona’s 8th congressional district best known for holding fundraisers with M16 automatic rifles, told an elderly gentleman at a campaign stop yesterday that health care is a “privilege” that people must “earn”, not a right.

Kelly, who is running to fill Gabby Gifford’s vacated seat — made the remarks while meeting with voters at the La Cholla Country Club yesterday. A senior citizen asked the candidate about his philosophical approach to health care and whether “health care is a right or a privilege?” Kelly hemmed and hawed before conceding that he believes health care “is a privilege to some extent.” He went on to say that health care is one of those “privileges you earn.”

VOTER: Do you think that health care is a right or a privilege?
KELLY: My belief system is this. The health care for anybody but especially for our nation. The highest quality and lowest cost can only be delivered without the government. What I believe is that all things we drive, we do, health care, anything, is a privilege to some extent. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, those are inalienable rights endowed by your creator. If you?re claiming a right, if you?re going to say anything?s a right, if you?re going to say you have a right to a cell phone, then who has the responsibility to pay for it? That?s what I believe.
VOTER: So you?d put health care as a privilege then?
KELLY: Absolutely, absolutely. I believe that all things we have are. But they’re privileges you earn.

Watch it:

Whether or not you agree with Kelly’s belief that health care is just a privilege, it is still a reality that far too many Americans die each year because they can’t afford access to the health care they need or receive uncompensated care that is financed by those who have insurance. Since everyone is bound to fall ill — and some may suffer an unexpected medical setback, as the Giffords tragedy illustrated — a system in which 50 million Americans are uninsured is an inefficient and quite expansive waste of tax payer dollars and resources.

Read The Full Article:
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/04/24/469891/jesse-kelly-health-care/

Digg this

BP Employee Arrested, Charged With
‘Intentionally Destroying Evidence’ On Response To Gulf Oil Disaster

post from ThinkProgress on 24 April 2012 03:00:03 PM. © ThinkProgress

Deepwater Horizon disaster ruined Florida's shores.

On the heels of the second anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon disaster, federal prosecutors have issued the first arrest related to the worst oil disaster in U.S. history. The Justice Department has charged former BP engineer Kurt Mix with destroying evidence on BP’s internal response to the disaster.

Mix, who worked on estimating the amount of oil spilling into the Gulf, allegedly deleted hundreds of text messages with a BP supervisor. This includes one that read “Too much flowrate ?- over 15,000,” barrels of oil per day, which was three-times higher than BP’s public estimate of barrels of oil per day at the time.

Attorney General Eric Holder issued the statement [emphasis added]:

?The department has filed initial charges in its investigation into the Deepwater Horizon disaster against an individual for allegedly deleting records relating to the amount of oil flowing from the Macondo well after the explosion that led to the devastating tragedy in the Gulf of Mexico,? said Attorney General Holder. ?The Deepwater Horizon Task Force is continuing its investigation into the explosion and will hold accountable those who violated the law in connection with the largest environmental disaster in U.S. history.?

As the criminal investigations continue, Congress has still not yet passed legislation responding to a disaster that continues to have devastating effects on fish, beaches, and wetlands.

Read The Full Article:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/24/470315/bp-employee-arrested-charged-w
ith-intentionally-destroying-evidence-on-response-to-gulf-oil-disaster/

Digg this

Rush Limbaugh censorship efforts attracts EFF
attention

post from Daily Kos on 24 April 2012 02:38:40 PM. © Daily Kos

Rush Limbaugh's 53 Smears Against Sandra Fluke from Daily Kos on Vimeo.

As noted yesterday, the Rush Limbaugh Show is attempting to silence criticism of his treatment of Sandra Fluke by getting our video compilation of it pulled from YouTube. We re-uploaded the video to Vimeo (the embed above), and can obviously keep posting it in multiple places if Limbaugh's lawyers persist.

But there is still the question of YouTube?the Google outfit that has erroneously pulled the video. The great folks at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the nation's staunchest defenders of online freedoms, have taken notice.

While initiating frivolous legal processes to intimidate and silence critics is hardly new, Limbaugh actually seems to be taking a specific page out of the playbook of Michael Savage, his on-again/off-again compatriot and fellow conservative talk radio fixture. In 2007, Savage turned to copyright law in an ultimately futile attempt to silence the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) who did precisely what the Daily Kos has done here: post online a minutes-long montage of outrageous statements made by a radio host in order to criticize the host's behavior and expose it for a public audience. In Savage's case, he unsuccessfully sued CAIR for copyright infringement ... Limbaugh has (for now) chosen the more expeditious DMCA takedown route. Just as with Savage's ridiculous attempt to keep his own words from being used against him failed, though, so will Limbaugh's.

EFF runs our Rush Limbaugh video through a Fair Use legal analysis, and like I said yesterday, it's not even close. It's about as clear a Fair Use situation as you can get. It's so cut and dry, actually, that there should be no reason for Google to play along with Limbaugh's censorship efforts.

A closing question for Google: Want to reconsider? You're not legally obligated to comply with plainly abusive DMCA notices. You've restored videos that were improperly taken down by meritless DMCA notices in the past. How about this one?

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/k5cc_TW06Qo/-Rush-Limbaugh-censors
hip-efforts-attracts-EFF-attention

Digg this

Appearing For The Defense Of Arizona's
Controversial Immigration Law: Fox News

post from Media Matters for America - Latest Items on 24 April 2012 02:31:50 PM. © Media Matters for America - Latest Items

This Wednesday the U.S. Supreme Court will decide if portions of Arizona's controversial immigration enforcement law, Senate Bill 1070, are inconsistent with federal law and therefore must be struck down. Fox has taken this opportunity to push misleading talking points about Arizona's immigration enforcement law and to continue to fearmonger about crime in Arizona.

Fox Fearmongers About Crime In AZ To Push Immigration Law

Fox's Johnson Claims There Is A "Crime Wave" In AZ. During the April 23 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Fox News legal analyst Peter Johnson Jr. suggested that crime is on the rise in Arizona and that the Arizona immigration law would help prevent it from increasing further:

JOHNSON: [W]hat Arizona is saying: Listen, we've got a crime wave, taxes are too high, the hospitals are overtaxed, the jails are brimming, they're posting signs that basically Arizona is a dangerous place, public warning, travel not recommended, human smuggling area, visitors may encounter armed criminals, and smuggling vehicles traveling at high rates of speed -- federal government, what are you doing to us? We just want to enforce your laws. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 4/23/12, via Media Matters]

Fox Regular Sekulow: "The State Of Arizona Is Under Siege." During the April 23 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, Jay Sekulow, an attorney for the American Center for Law and Justice and a frequent Fox News guest, suggested that crime in Arizona is increasing:

SEKULOW: And this argument that we just allow the federal government to make the decision ignores the reality that the state of Arizona is under siege on its borders between the drug wars that are going on, with the gangs coming across. It's illegal immigration policy has to be enforced, and it has to be enforced at the state level, as well as the federal level, and what's happening right now is inexcusable. [Fox News, America's Newsroom, 4/23/12, via Media Matters]

But Statistics Do Not Show An Increase In Crime In Arizona

Arizona Crime Rate Dropped From 2007 Through 2010. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) data show that violent crime rates for Arizona dropped from 2007 through 2010, the most recent year for which data are available:

[FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, accessed 4/23/12, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010]

Huffington Post: "Hacked Arizona Police Document Contradicts ... Border Violence Claims" In AZ. In a June 27, 2011, Huffington Post article, John Rudolf explained that contrary to the claims of border violence by public officials, the Department of Homeland Security's [DHS] Office of Intelligence and Analysis report "finds no signs that significant violence in Mexico is spilling across the border into Arizona." From the article, headlined, "Hacked Arizona Police Document Contradicts McCain and Brewer's Border Violence Claims":

A trove of internal Arizona state police documents released by a hacker group last week contains a confidential federal report that contradicts claims by Arizona politicians, including Gov. Jan Brewer and Sen. John McCain, that violence tied to drug trafficking and illegal immigration from Mexico is on the rise in the state.
[...]
[T]he hacked report, by the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Intelligence and Analysis, finds no signs that significant violence in Mexico is spilling across the border into Arizona.
The agency "lacks information that indicates Mexican traffickers have directed any killings in Arizona" between 2008 and 2009, the report states, in a section titled "Violence Rising in Mexico, but Not in United States."
The report also notes that Arizona's murder rate plunged by 20 percent statewide between 2008 and 2009. It cites one murder -- the 2010 shooting of an Arizona rancher -- as "one of the few homicides that clearly have a cross-border connection." [Huffington Post, 6/27/11]

Fox Misleads To Claim That Arizona Law Is Compatible With Federal Law

Fox's Johnson: All Arizona Wants To Do Is Enforce The Federal Government's Immigration Laws. During the April 23 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Peter Johnson Jr. suggested that the Supreme Court upholding the AZ immigration law would be the same as the federal government enforcing federal immigration laws. From the show:

JOHNSON: [W]hat Arizona is saying: Listen, we've got a crime wave, taxes are too high, the hospitals are overtaxed, the jails are brimming, they're posting signs that basically Arizona is a dangerous place, public warning, travel not recommended, human smuggling area, visitors may encounter armed criminals, and smuggling vehicles traveling at high rates of speed -- federal government, what are you doing to us? We just want to enforce your laws. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 4/23/12, via Media Matters]

Sekulow: The AZ Immigration Law Is "Consistent With Federal Policy." During the April 23 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, Jay Sekulow said that "Arizona ... was correct in applying immigration law, consistent with federal policy":

SEKULOW: I think the Court is going to follow what it did in the Arizona immigration case last year and hold in fact that Arizona was not only within its rights, but was correct in applying immigration law, consistent with federal policy, but enforcement at the state level.
[...]
BILL HEMMER (co-host): But what Arizona is arguing, Angie, is that the government in Washington has not acted, therefore they have no choice but to act. Jay, argue that.
SEKULOW: Well, that's right. But there's another important point. ... The states have a valid role to play, in fact, the federal law that is in place that unfortunately, you're right, Bill, is not being enforced properly -- the federal government says it's lack of man power. But the reality is that federal law has in it a requirement that state law enforcement officers contact federal officials when there is a question on immigration status. So it's not as if the state government has no role to play.
And this argument that we just allow the federal government to make the decision ignores the reality that the state of Arizona is under siege on its borders between the drug wars that are going on, with the gangs coming across. Its illegal immigration policy has to be enforced, and it has to be enforced at the state level, as well as the federal level, and what's happening right now is inexcusable.
HEMMER: OK, let me get to Angie to respond to this.
ANGIE KELLY (immigration expert): Yeah.
HEMMER: Because Jay is arguing that the law is clear already.
SEKULOW: Yeah. [Fox News, America's Newsroom, 4/23/12, via Media Matters]

However, Lower Court Found AZ Law Inconsistent With Federal Law

Ninth Circuit: AZ Requirement That Officers Check Immigration Status "Interferes With The Federal Government's Authority." In United States v. Arizona, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit struck down Section 2(B) of S.B. 1070, which states that when officers have reasonable suspicion that someone they have lawfully stopped is an unauthorized immigrant, they "shall" make "a reasonable attempt ... when practicable to determine the immigration status" of the person. The court stated:

By imposing mandatory obligations on state and local officers, Arizona interferes with the federal government's authority to implement its priorities and strategies in law enforcement, turning Arizona officers into state-directed DHS agents. As a result, Section 2(B) interferes with Congress' delegation of discretion to the Executive branch in enforcing the INA.
[...]
In light of the foregoing, we conclude that the United States has met its burden to show that there is likely no set of circumstances under which S.B. 1070 Section 2(B) would be valid, and it is likely to succeed on the merits of its challenge. The district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding the same. [United States v. Arizona, 11/1/10]

Ninth Circuit: AZ Requirement That Immigrants Carry Alien Registration Document "Stands In Opposition To The Supreme Court's Direction." The Ninth Circuit also found that Section 3 of S.B. 1070, which makes it a crime in Arizona for an immigrant to fail to carry "an alien registration document," was pre-empted by federal law. The court stated:

S.B. 1070 Section 3 plainly stands in opposition to the Supreme Court's direction: "where the federal government, in the exercise of its superior authority in this field, has enacted a complete scheme of regulation and has therein provided a standard for the registration of aliens, states cannot, inconsistently with the purpose of Congress, conflict or interfere with, curtail or complement, the federal law, or enforce additional or auxiliary regulations." Hines, 312 U.S. at 66-67, 61 S.Ct. 399. In Hines, the Court considered the preemptive effect of a precursor to the INA, but the Court's language speaks in general terms about "a complete scheme of regulation," -- as to registration, documentation, and possession of proof thereof -- which the INA certainly contains. Section 3's state punishment for federal registration violations fits within the Supreme Court's very broad description of proscribed state action in this area -- which includes "complement[ing]" and "enforcing] additional or auxiliary regulations."
[...]
In addition, as detailed with respect to Section 2(B) above, S.B. 1070's detrimental effect on foreign affairs, and its potential to lead to 50 different state immigration schemes piling on top of the federal scheme, weigh in favor of the preemption of Section 3. [*357]
In light of the foregoing, we conclude that the United States has met its burden to show that there is likely no set of circumstances under which S.B. 1070 Section 3 would be valid, and it is likely to succeed on the merits of its challenge. The district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding the same. [United States v. Arizona, 11/1/10]

Ninth Circuit Also Found That Two Other Sections Of The Arizona Law Are Incompatible With Federal Law. The Ninth Circuit also found that S.B. 1070 Section 5(C), which makes it illegal for an undocumented immigrant to apply for work, and S.B. 1070 Section 6, which grants authority to any Arizona police officer to arrest people who allegedly commit crimes that make them removable from the United States, are pre-empted by federal law. [United States v. Arizona, 11/1/10]

Reagan-Appointed Federal Judge: S.B. 1070 Is "Chilling" And "Incompatibl[e] With Federal Foreign Policy." Ninth Circuit Judge John Noonan, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan, joined the majority opinion striking down portions of S.B. 1070. However, he wrote a separate opinion saying:

I concur in the opinion of the court. I write separately to emphasize the intent of the statute and its incompatibility with federal foreign policy.
[...]
The Arizona statute before us has become a symbol. For those sympathetic to immigrants to the United States, it is a challenge and a chilling foretaste of what other states might attempt. For those burdened by unlawful immigration, it suggests how a state could tackle that problem. It is not our function, however, to evaluate the statute as a symbol. We are asked to assess the constitutionality of five sections on their face integrated by the intent stated in Section 1. If we read Section 1 of the statute, the statute states the purpose of providing a solution to illegal immigration into the United States. So read, the statute is a singular entry into the foreign policy of the United States by a single state. The district court properly enjoined implementation of the four sections of the statute. [United States v. Arizona, 11/1/10]

Bush-Appointed Federal Judge Agreed That Two Sections Of S.B. 1070 Are Unconstitutional. Judge Carlos Bea, an appointee of President George W. Bush, agreed that S.B. 1070 Sections 3 and 5(B) are pre-empted by federal law. Bea disagreed with the majority's ruling on Sections 2(B) and 6. [United States v. Arizona, 11/1/10]

Experts: Having Local Police Enforce Immigration Law Would Increase Ethnic Profiling And Wrongful Detentions

Local And State Law Enforcement Officials Says AZ Law Would Lean To Detention Of "Individuals Who In Fact Are Not Subject To Removal." According to a section in a Supreme Court amici curiae brief by local and state law enforcement officials, "it will be virtually impossible for local police officers" to familiarize themselves with all the complexities of federal immigration law, given the "numerous other responsibilities" they have. The brief adds that "[t]he inevitable result will be the erroneous application of federal immigration laws to detain for removal individuals who in fact are not subject to removal." From the brief:

[F]ederal immigration laws are extremely complex, and it will be virtually impossible for local police officers, who already have numerous other responsibilities, to become sufficiently familiar with the various categories of immigration status under federal immigration law. The inevitable result will be the erroneous application of federal immigration laws to detain for removal individuals who in fact are not subject to removal.
[...]
To carry out S.B. 1070's mandate properly, every local law enforcement officer in Arizona would have to become familiar with the multitude of different immigration categories that are created by federal immigration law. While some categories of lawful status are relatively straightforward (i.e., U.S. citizen, lawful permanent resident), local police officers will have to understand the full array of nonimmigrant visas and special authorization programs to ensure that they do not detain someone who has received permission from a federal agency to remain in the country.
Nearly 50 million individuals are lawfully admitted into the United States each year. They fall into a wide range of different nonimmigrant visa categories, including the following:
·         foreign government officials (A visas),
·         business travelers (B-1 visas),
·         tourists (B-2 visas),
·         students (F-1 visas),
·         guest workers and seasonal workers (various kinds of H visas),
·         North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) professional workers (TN visas), and
·         workers in religious occupations (R-1 visas) [Brief Of State And Local Law Enforcement Officials in Arizona v. United States, March 2012]

Republican And Democratic Former State Attorneys General: If S.B. 1070 Goes Into Effect, "Racial Profiling Will Occur." From an amici curiae brief filed on behalf of former Republican Arizona attorney general Grant Woods and other former state attorneys general:

Although SB 1070 prohibits utilizing race as the only factor in determining whether an officer has reasonable suspicion of undocumented status, the prohibition is limited by the statement that race may be considered "to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution." SB 1070 § 2(B). As the Court is well aware, United States v. Brignoni-Ponce can be read to permit officers to consider race as one of many permissible factors, at least in certain limited contexts. See 422 U.S. 873, 882-87 (1975). Thus, by its very terms, SB 1070 invites officers to consider race
SB 1070's use of race, however, goes further. The text of the law contains no guidance as to what other factors Arizona police can use to make the reasonable suspicion determination, and neither Petitioners nor their amici have proffered any guidance.
[...]
[T]he collective experiences of amici and other law enforcement agencies bear out that racial profiling will occur when local officials act as immigration agents. [Brief of former Arizona attorneys general Terry Goddard and Grant Woods and of 42 other former attorneys general in Arizona v. United States, 3/26/12]

U.S. Civil Rights Commissioner: SB 1070 Targets People "Simply Because Of Their Resemblance To Other Individuals Who May Be In The Country Illegally." Michael Yaki, attorney and member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, wrote on April 26, 2010:

What this law does, without question, is target individuals for special treatment by law enforcement simply because of their resemblance to other individuals who may be in the country illegally. It attempts to skirt the federal pre-emption argument by simplying putting more people into the potential federal holding pen and letting ICE sort it all out. But the law, by its very wording, cannot distinguish between an American, a green card holder, and an undocumented person without first subjecting that person to a wholly different level and standard of identification and presumption of guilt. [San Francisco Chronicle, 4/26/10]

Mesa Police Chief: SB 1070 Would Require "People To Prove Their Innocence" Before Being Charged With A Crime. The Arizona Republic reported that Mesa police chief Frank Milstead said the legislation "would essentially require 'people to prove their innocence' before even being charged with a crime." He also said he was concerned over the potential costs to enforce the law. [The Arizona Republic, 4/14/10]

Lawyer James Doty: New Law Is "Vulnerable To The Argument That It Essentially Criminalizes Walking While Hispanic." Lawyer James Doty wrote on April 26, 2010, that "no one has come up" with an answer to the question, "What do illegal immigrants look like?" that doesn't invoke ethnicity. Doty further wrote that "[t]he new law, on its face, doesn't make racial distinctions, but its supporters haven't articulated any other grounds for suspecting that someone is an unlawful resident. It is, therefore, vulnerable to the argument that it essentially criminalizes walking while Hispanic," and that "the law seems to require that officers demand documentation from suspected aliens based on mere hunches -- a clear violation of the Constitution." [Salon, 4/26/10]

ACLU: "To Avoid Arrest, Citizens And Immigrants Will Effectively Have To Carry Their 'Papers' At All Times." The American Civil Liberties Union stated on April 23, 2010, that SB 1070 "creates new immigration crimes and penalties inconsistent with those in federal law, asserts sweeping authority to detain and transport persons suspected of violating civil immigration laws and prohibits speech and other expressive activity by persons seeking work." The ACLU further stated that the law "requires police agencies across Arizona to investigate the immigration status of every person they come across whom they have 'reasonable suspicion' to believe is in the country unlawfully. To avoid arrest, citizens and immigrants will effectively have to carry their 'papers' at all times." [ACLU, 4/23/10]

Law Enforcement Officials Say AZ Law Distorts Police Priorities

AZ Republic: Police Chiefs Said Officers "Will Have To Make Immigration Enforcement Their Priority Over Every Other Type Of Crime." The Arizona Republic reported on April 22, 2010, that SB 1070 "requires local law-enforcement agencies to enforce federal immigration law to the fullest extent permitted by federal law" and "would allow Arizonans to sue agencies if they don't believe an agency is complying with the law." The AZ Republic further reported:

Police chiefs who oppose the bill have said these requirements will mean officers will have to make immigration enforcement their first priority over every other type of crime.
They may have to wait around for federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement to verify a suspect's immigration status and possibly transport a suspect to jail to be held until that status can be determined.
The chiefs also say the bill offers no additional funding to train officers in how to judge reasonable suspicion or otherwise enforce federal laws.
"This will further impact police departments already lacking the resources to do their basic job," said former Mesa Police Chief George Gascón, who now leads the San Francisco Police Department. [The Arizona Republic, 4/22/10]

Arizona Police Chiefs: SB 1070 Interferes With Police Work. The Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police stated that SB 1070 "will negatively affect the ability of law enforcement agencies across the state to fulfill their many responsibilities in a timely manner." [Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police, accessed 4/24/12]

Yuma County Sheriff: "We Don't Have Enough People To Be Doing What We're Supposed To Be Doing Anyway." Yuma County Sheriff Ralph Ogden opposed the passage of SB 1070, citing the cost of detaining individuals and a "'12 percent reduction in force availability' for each incident, where a deputy would be tied up investigating someone's immigration status," according to a Phoenix New Times post. The post also quoted Ogden as saying, "[I]f you start spending less time on property crimes and personal crimes, you don't want to do that":

"We're like everybody else," explained Ogden, who's in his fourth term as Yuma County Sheriff. "We don't have enough people to be doing what we're supposed to be doing anyway. But you have to prioritize. And if you start spending less time on property crimes and personal crimes, you don't want to do that."
Ogden was also concerned with another provision of the Pearce legislation that would grant a private right of action for a citizen to sue a law enforcement agency if that person believes that the agency is not pursuing immigration violations to "the full extent permitted by federal law." [Phoenix New Times, 4/12/10]

Sacramento Police Chief: "No Other Law In The Country Allows Citizens To Sue A Government Agency For Not Arresting Enough People." The San Francisco Chronicle reported on April 22, 2010, that former Sacramento Police Chief Arturo Venegas said that the bill "essentially legislates racial profiling, putting police in the middle of the train tracks to face an onslaught of civil-rights violations lawsuits" and that "[n]o other law in the country allows citizens to sue a government agency for not arresting enough people." [San Francisco Chronicle, 4/22/10]

AZ Law Could Undermine Trust Of Police, Community Policing

Major Cities Chiefs Association: AZ Law Could Harm "Trust And Cooperation Between Local Police And Immigrant Communities." USA Today reported that San Jose Police Chief Robert Davis, president of the Major Cities Chiefs Association, "said the group stands by its 2006 policy that 'immigration enforcement by local police would likely negatively effect and undermine the level of trust and cooperation between local police and immigrant communities.'" [USA Today, 4/26/10]

Former Mesa Police Chief: "People Will Be More Hesitant To Report Crimes." The Arizona Republic reported that former Mesa Police Chief George Gascon "said the bill also will have 'catastrophic impacts on community policing.' " The AZ Republic further quoted Gascon as saying, "People will be more hesitant to report crimes, and that will create some very, very tough circumstances for local police in dealing with crime issues in areas heavily visited by people here from other countries." [The Arizona Republic, 4/22/10]

WSJ: People Are Less Likely To Report Crimes If They See "The Local Police As Deportation Agents." In an April 27, 2010, editorial, The Wall Street Journal stated that the Arizona law "is an extraordinary state criminalization of a heretofore federal authority." The editorial further stated, "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." [The Wall Street Journal, 4/27/10]

American Jewish Committee: SB 1070 Encourages "Fear Of Police." Richard Foltin, AJC's Director of National and Legislative Affairs stated: "This law essentially allows police to question and arrest people on little more than suspicion. It will encourage racial profiling, fear of police and further distrust in a community already wary of law enforcement." [American Jewish Committee, 4/26/10]