Are Sanctuary Cities in Jeopardy Over Obama Justice Department’s Lawsuit against Arizona’s Border Enforcements SB 1070?

Are Sanctuary Cities in Jeopardy Over Obama Justice Department’s Lawsuit against Arizona’s Border Enforcements SB 1070?  

By Marc Chamot

Is President Obama being a BIG hypocrite especially when it comes to Arizona, in ENFORCING BROKEN federal immigration laws, when Sanctuary Cities are getting away Scott Free from having to FOLLOW the rules? Is the Fed’s lawsuit going to put an end to Sanctuary Cities?

Conservative opinion writer for the VERY LIBERAL San Francisco Chronicle, made a good argument about President Obama Department of Justice’s lawsuit, against Arizona’s enforcements of anti-illegal immigrations bill SB1070.

“The Department of Justice argues that enforcement of the Arizona law "is pre-empted by federal law and therefore violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution."

Does this mean that if Team Obama prevails over Arizona, San Francisco and other sanctuary cities should prepare to go to court against the feds?

After all, the Obama brief argues that "a state may not establish its own immigration policy or enforce state laws in a manner that interferes with the federal immigration laws. The Constitution and the federal immigration laws do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country."

In 1989, Ess Eff passed a sanctuary city ordinance which prohibits city employees from working with federal immigration officials, unless required by federal law, state law or warrant.”

Absolutely! If the Feds have their way against Arizona, it basically means that anyone can sue and invalidate Sanctuary Cities, of which I’m sure that is where we’re heading to next.

Debra J. Saunder’s Free pass for sanctuary cities? The Obama administration had gone to federal court to kill Arizona's new illegal-immigration law, scheduled to go into effect Thursday.

In 2007, Mayor Gavin Newsom, who is running for lieutenant governor, announced he would not allow city "department heads or anyone associated with this city to cooperate in any way, shape or form" with Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids to arrest immigrant fugitives who had criminal records or had violated deportation orders.

Even when federal law required cooperation, San Francisco had declined. Some time around 2005, city officials determined that they would not notify federal authorities when undocumented juveniles - or criminals who simply claimed to be under 18 - were charged with felonies. Instead, the city sent serious and repeat offenders into under-supervised group homes and even flew some offenders back to their home countries.

In 2008, after the feds detained a probation officer flying an illegal immigrant to Honduras, Newsom told city workers to notify ICE when undocumented minors were arrested on felony charges, as per federal law. But the sanctuary city policy itself stands.

Now one would think that if the Obama administration cannot brook "a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country," the U.S. Department of Justice would have sued San Francisco to end its sanctuary city program. But apparently Team Obama objects when a state wants to enforce the law - instead of flout it.

Department of Justice spokesperson Hannah August put it this way in an e-mail: "There's a difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law. That's what Arizona did in this case, and we believe it is an unconstitutional interference with the federal government's prerogative to set and enforce immigration policy."

The DOJ has a point in arguing that the Arizona law's mandatory enforcement provision is likely to interfere with ICE's focus on deporting illegal immigrants with criminal convictions. The Washington Post reported Monday that under President Obama, deportations are on track to be 10 percent above the Bush administration's 2008 total.

Still, a patchwork is a patchwork. When a state wants to push immigration enforcement, that's interference. When cities that get federal funds choose to thwart enforcement, suddenly it's a resource decision.

First Were the Black Panthers Voters Intimidations Scandals and Now Sherley Jerrod??? Oh, Say it Ain’t So Mr. Prez Obama & NAACP:

First Were the Black Panthers Voters Intimidations Scandals and Now Sherley Jerrod??? Oh, Say it Ain’t So Mr. Prez Obama & NAACP:
By Marc Chamot

"Apologies are DUE; once in a while and even the BEST of us get duped. 

Apparently it happened with this Shirley Sherrod video. I for one I’m very embraced as a blogger. I made the mistake of going into this racially charged story, with kneejerk angry reactionary mode instead of weighing in on the facts.

Fox News fell for the story just as many of us have. Conservative journalist Andrew Breitbart has a whole lot of explaining to do, behind the half-news he posted on Sherrod. 


His CREDIBILITY is on the line after this. I would normally delete a blog post like this, but I’m a firm believer to admit a wrong when it comes along.

It’s absolutely wrong for ANYBODY to be playing with the facts, or to make it into something that never was. We’re already trying to make the Internet the most credible source there is, and we’ve GOT JERKS that give us a BAD NAME….." Marc Chamot

Wow! It's beginning to sound more like Zimbabwe not the old U.S. of A.

Obama as president, in over a year and a half, has singlehandedly reversed 20 years in American race relations. A friend of mine told me it’s going to get worse, and I believe him, before this IDIOT is out of office.

Yeah, we’ve GOT full BLOWN RACISTS in the Obama White House, that’s for sure. They, the NAACP, called the Tea Party RACISTS? What hypocrites.

Video Shows USDA Official Saying She Didn't Give 'Full Force' of Help to White Farmer
Days after the NAACP clashed with Tea Party members over allegations of racism, a video has surfaced showing an Agriculture Department official regaling an NAACP audience with a story about how she withheld help to a white farmer facing bankruptcy -- video that now has forced the official to resign.

Shirley Sherrod, the department's Georgia director of Rural Development, is shown in the clip describing "the first time I was faced with having to help a white farmer save his farm." Sherrod, who is black, claimed the farmer took a long time trying to show he was "superior" to her. The audience laughed as she described how she determined his fate.

"He had to come to me for help. What he didn't know while he was taking all that time trying to show me he was superior to me was I was trying to decide just how much help I was going to give him," she said. "I was struggling with the fact that so many black people have lost their farmland and here I was faced with having to help a white person save their land -- so I didn't give him the full force of what I could do. I did enough."

The Agriculture Department announced Monday, shortly after FoxNews.com published its initial report on the video, that Sherrod had resigned.

"There is zero tolerance for discrimination at USDA, and I strongly condemn any act of discrimination against any person," Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in a written statement. "We have been working hard through the past 18 months to reverse the checkered civil rights history at the department and take the issue of fairness and equality very seriously.

The NAACP released a statement late Monday condemning Sherrod's admission. "We are appalled by her actions, just as we are with abuses of power against farmers of color and female farmers," the statement said.

"Her actions were shameful," it continued. "While she went on to explain in the story that she ultimately realized her mistake, as well as the common predicament of working people of all races, she gave no indication she had attempted to right the wrong she had done to this man."

Sherrod explained in the video that, at the time, she assumed the state or national Department of Agriculture had referred the white farmer to her. In order to ensure that the farmer could report back that she was indeed helpful, she said she took him to see "one of his own" -- a white lawyer.

"I figured that if I take him to one of them, that his own kind would take care of him," she said. The point of the story wasn't entirely clear; only an excerpt of the speech is included in the video clip. "It was revealed to me that it's about poor versus those who have," she said, suggesting she had learned that race is less important.

The video clip was first posted by BigGovernment.com. The clip is dated March 27 from an NAACP Freedom Fund banquet.

The clip adds to the firestorm of debate over the NAACP's decision to approve a resolution at its convention last week accusing some Tea Party activists of racism -- a charge Tea Party leaders deny.

In a second clip from the same event posted online, Sherrod appeared to urge black job seekers to find work at the Department of Agriculture because the federal government won't lay people off.

"There are jobs at USDA and many times there are no people of color to fill those jobs because we shy away from agriculture. We hear the word agriculture and think, why are we working in the fields?" she said. "You've heard of a lot of layoffs. Have you heard of anybody in the federal government losing their job? That's all I need to say."

More Nonsense Out of the Obama’s U.S. Department of Justice Arizona Lawsuit; they say securing the Border Will Hurt the Drug War:

More Nonsense Out of the Obama’s U.S. Department of Justice Arizona Lawsuit; they say securing the Border Will Hurt the Drug War:
By Marc Chamot

The MOST absurd thing ever heard. The Obama/Arizona lawsuit is based on; Arizona immigration law: Will it hurt Mexico's drug war, as US lawsuit says? “Mexico applauded the Obama administration's lawsuit against the Arizona immigration law. The US lawsuit argues that the Arizona law undermines the effort to fight crime, especially the drug war.

Mexico’s government applauded an Obama administration lawsuit brought Tuesday against the Arizona immigration law. Some analysts here agree with the lawsuit that argues the Arizona law undermines the drug war. But others say the suit diverts attention away from a more important goal for most Mexicans: US immigration reform.

“Mexico expresses its approval of the United States government decision to try and prevent the SB 1070 law from taking effect,” said President Felipe Calderon’s government, which has been highly vocal in opposing the Arizona law.

The Arizona law makes it a crime to be an illegal immigrant in the state. It also requires police to determine the immigration status of a person stopped for other infractions when there is “reasonable suspicion” the person is an undocumented migrant.”

The FEDS claim that enforcements of border controls by Arizona will hurt the U.S. to fight Mexican drug wars. I say how?

This is more of the same and systematic idiocies we get from the Obama White House. In the contrary, enforcing Mexican borders will help ELIMINATE the drug wars. If they and their drugs don’t come through Arizona, they stay in Mexico! Are we Americans this daft? Are we supposed to believe this crock of manure coming from the Obama FEDS?

Unless President Obama and Mexico’s Claderon are in cahoots with DRUG imports into the United States, if anything folks, this is a PRETTY sorry argument coming from the Obama Federal Justice Department, about Arizonan’s rights to protect themselves. If a FEDERAL judge falls for this malarkey, we need a new federal government soon.

AB482-California Moves to BAN Pre-Employment Credit Checks Due to Hard Times; Other States & U.S. Congress Should Follow Suit:

AB482-California Moves to BAN Pre-Employment Credit Checks Due to Hard Times; Other States & U.S. Congress Should Follow Suit:

By Marc Chamot

Just BECAUSE someone cannot pay their credit BILLS, don't freaking MEAN they're a thief or incompetent.

AB482, introduced by Assemblyman Tony Mendoza, D-Norwalk (Los Angeles County), would prohibit the use of credit checks in hiring decisions unless the information was "substantially job-related," which would allow Californians to compete for jobs based on their real, rather than imagined, qualifications. The time is right to end this credit catch-22.

On December 27^th 1988 our U.S. congress banned the use of pre-employment polygraphs, for private employers to use on jobs prospects. Joe Ridout came up with a very good point; it’s TIME for our congress to ACT on credit checks. If our government wants to do something constructive, and if they want to help the struggling unemployed American workers, they NEED to get on with it now.

Polygraphs or lie detectors in the past were JOB killers for most folks. Instead of wasting time on useless and needless laws, this is a real good one to pursue.  I don’t SEE what credit checks have to do with SELLING furniture, working for newspapers or working in car lots, or basically anywhere where no money is involved.

Lie Detector Tests; The Employee Polygraph Protection Act prohibits most private employers from using lie detector tests, either for pre-employment screening or during the course of employment. The law includes a list of exceptions that apply to businesses that provide armored car services, alarm or guard services, or manufacture, distribute, or dispense pharmaceuticals. Even though there is no federal law specifically prohibiting you from using a written honesty test on job applicants, these tests frequently violate federal and state laws that protect against discrimination and violations of privacy. The test are rarely reliable, so unless a business is one of the exceptions, most employers do not use lie detectors in the hiring process.

The way it is NOW; Credit Reports

Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) employers must get an employee's written consent before seeking an employee's credit report. If you decide not to hire or promote someone based on information in the credit report, you must provide a copy of the report and let the applicant know of his or her right to challenge the report under the FCRA. Some states have more stringent rules limiting the use of credit reports. Using Consumer Credit Reports : What Employers Need to Know details the Fair Credit Reporting Act's impact on pre-employment checks.

Credit checks don’t tell you, IF one’s a THIEF, when someone’s fallen in bad times. I totally agree with Joe Ridout on this; “Job seekers with poor credit histories are at a significant disadvantage today. Some 60 percent of employers examine applicants' credit reports, which means a poor credit rating can turn a successful job search into an even longer stay within the purgatory of unemployment.

But what if someone's credit is impaired simply because he lost his job and thus lacks the income to pay all his bills on time? This is a profoundly unfair Catch-22, which effectively prevents applicants from getting a job because they do not have a job.

Surprisingly, there is no research correlating good or bad credit scores with good or bad job performance. It is a popular myth, promoted by two main sources: credit bureaus who wish to sell as many credit checks as possible (even though they admit that credit checks have no predictive value of job performance) and shortsighted human resources departments who see credit checks as an appealing shortcut to a thorough vetting of applicants. Job seekers get caught in the middle, and face unfair discrimination as a result.

Credit reports are a faulty selection tool because they reveal little about one's moral character or integrity. In truth, they reveal more about the times in which we live. During high unemployment, credit reports can be particularly misleading. 


More than 6.5 million Americans have been unemployed for six months or more, which means that more bills are paid late. Does this mean that someone without money to pay his bills will make a substandard worker? No research has found such a correlation.”

Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA) The EPPA prohibits most private employers from using lie detector tests, either for pre-employment screening or during the course of employment. Employers generally may not require or request any employee or job applicant to take a lie detector test, or discharge, discipline, or discriminate against an employee or job applicant for refusing to take a test or for exercising other rights under the Act.

Employers may not use or inquire about the results of a lie detector test or discharge or discriminate against an employee or job applicant on the basis of the results of a test, or for filing a complaint, or for participating in a proceeding under the Act. Subject to restrictions, the Act permits polygraph (a type of lie detector) tests to be administered to certain job applicants of security service firms (armored car, alarm, and guard) and of pharmaceutical manufacturers, distributors and dispensers.

Subject to restrictions, the Act also permits polygraph testing of certain employees of private firms who are reasonably suspected of involvement in a workplace incident (theft, embezzlement, etc.) that resulted in specific economic loss or injury to the employer. Where polygraph examinations are allowed, they are subject to strict standards for the conduct of the test, including the pretest, testing and post-testing phases. An examiner must be licensed and bonded or have professional liability coverage. The Act strictly limits the disclosure of information obtained during a polygraph test.

Full Story: It's time to end job hunters' credit catch-22 Perhaps studies have been unable to link credit and job performance because people with bad credit may be motivated to work harder and stay with their company longer, because they need the job to resolve their financial problems.

According to CoreLogic's recent report, 11.6 percent of California's borrowers are more than 90 days late with mortgage payments. Another 3.1 percent are in foreclosure. Either situation is devastating to one's credit score. Yet many of these individuals have demonstrated a lifetime of financial responsibility, until they bought a home at the peak of the real estate bubble.

As with Social Security numbers, the use of credit report data has moved well beyond what it originally was designed for - to the detriment of consumers. Years ago in California, insurance companies tried to charge higher premiums if you had a low credit score.

The assumption was outlandish: If you paid your student loan bill late, would a tree be more likely to fall on your roof? Of course not, and for this reason California banned discrimination on the basis of credit reports by insurers. For the same reason, employers should not be allowed to use credit reports to discriminate against job applicants.