OUR FIRST DAY IN U.S. DISTRICT COURT!

July 18, 2010

When the SB 1070 furor began, I took the position of supporting the Constitutional principles of Equal Protection & Federal Preemption in this matter. As a result, I was honored to join Police Officer Salgado & Chicanos por la Causa as a Plaintiff in the landmark case. You might disagree with my beliefs—but consider how blessed we are to reside in a country that allows for the judicial review of actions by the State.

Click for an ASSOCIATED PRESS VIDEO SUMMARY of our first day in US District Court!

AN ENEMY OF PEACE - Editorial on SB 1070 by Corbet Dean

July 18, 2010

In 1967, Martin Luther King, Jr. challenged a nation with his haunting question, “Where do we go from here: chaos or community?”1 Over forty years later, the passing of Arizona’s new immigration law has many neighborhood leaders asking themselves the same question.

Having worked as a police officer for nearly twenty years, I know what happens when a community gives in to fear: if distrust takes root, hatred becomes the fruit. Public discourse stops. As Edmund Burke once said, “No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear.”2

My career in law enforcement has afforded me a unique glimpse into the process of identifying, suppressing, and prosecuting criminal cases in Arizona. Furthermore, half my career served the Maryvale Precinct, a West Valley neighborhood comprised of nearly 63% Latino residents,3 many of which are undocumented.

As an Arizona native, I feel obligated to share my perspective on the recent passing of Senate Bill 1070. By doing so, I hope I can accelerate the dialogue between two equally sincere movements. However, reaching a consensus is impossible until we all agree to set aside our hyperbole in favor of more quantifiable data. As former Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger once said, “Each of us is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”4

To that end, please read the Senate Summary of SB 1070 HERE,5 or view the full text HERE.6 Now let us examine five popular opinions that promoted the passing of this new legislation:
.

MYTH #1: ARIZONA LAW ENFORCEMENT LOVES S.B. 1070.

FALSE. Thus far, an ever growing list of Arizona law enforcement are furious at the prospect of trying to apply the new immigration directive. Consider the following:

• The Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police: “The AACOP remains in opposition to Senate Bill 1070. The provisions of the bill remain problematic and will negatively affect the ability of law enforcement agencies across the state to fulfill their many responsibilities in a timely manner.”7

• One of the first Federal lawsuit filed to stop SB 1070 was filed April 29, 2010 by Police Officer Martin Escobar in Tucson, Arizona.8 Read his formal complaint HERE.

• Another Federal lawsuit filed to stop SB 1070 was filed April 30th by Police Officer Dave Salgado in Phoenix, Arizona.9

• Despite receiving multiple death threats for his concern, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik called the law “a national embarrassment.” He went on to describe the bill as “unwise” and promised his organization would not enforce the bill unless forced to.10

• Yuma County Sheriff Ralph Ogdon fiercely opposed the measure, citing the cost of detaining individuals at $85 a day. Furthermore, he cites a “‘12 percent reduction in force availability’ for each incident, where a deputy would be tied up investigating someone's immigration status. ‘We're like everybody else,’ explained Ogden...‘We don't have enough people to be doing what we're supposed to be doing anyway.’”11

• Mesa’s Assistant Chief Mike Denney recently asked The Arizona Republic, “What does it do to our already limited resources? Officers are going to have to spend a lot of time determining whether someone is or is not in the country illegally.”12

• Arizona Fraternal Order of Police President Bryan Soller recently complained about the bill for fiscal reasons, projecting that the sure “will bankrupt our city.”13

• Former Mesa Police Chief George Gascon (currently serving as the San Francisco Police Chief) indicated that the Arizona legislation “will have a catastrophic effect on policing and set back community policing efforts for decades.”14

• Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon called the measure “an ugly, discriminatory law”15 and publicly protested the measure before it became law. He feels so strongly that 1070 will assuredly hurt “not only the immigrants, but the citizens of Hispanic origin,”16 that he is currently organizing other Arizona Mayors to legally challenge the bill.17

Why are some police powers frantically trying to stop this bill? In short, the successful prosecution of criminal cases requires community involvement. The implementation of 1070 kills the concept of community based policing, thereby ensuring higher crime rates, fewer prosecutions, and a more unstable society.

In 1979, then Los Angeles Police Chief Daryl Gates addressed the issue of immigration enforcement in “Special Order 40.” The mandate forbade “initiat(ing) police action with the objective of discovering the alien status of a person.” The reasoning was simple: if local victims viewed law enforcement as an immigration agency, then that voluntary flow of information law enforcement needs would stop. After withstanding several court challenges regarding the scope of its authority, “Special Order 40” remains in effect to this day.18

As former California police officer and prosecutor William Cox bluntly stated: “Say a woman has been raped. Is she going to come forward and say, ‘Yes, I’ve been raped,’ if she will then get deported for reporting her victimization?”19

Similarly, you cannot solve homicides without witnesses. Thanks to the testimony of an undocumented Californian, LAPD recently solved a murder and incarcerated the offender.20 Unfortunately, the wedge of fear that 1070 drives into our community will not only enslave our victims, but also ensure that dangerous felons remain free to victimize other citizens. .

MYTH #2: MORE IMMIGRANTS = MORE CRIME.

FALSE. A National Opinion Research survey found that 73% of Americans believed that immigrants are casually related to more crime.21 Such fears are unfortunate, especially considering that dozens of national studies examining immigration and crime have all concluded that immigrants are significantly less likely to commit crimes than U.S. citizens.22

In 2008, a study by the Public Policy Institute of California found that among 18 to 40 year old men, natives were 10 times more likely to be in prison or jail than immigrants. After narrowing the focus to only those undocumented inmates born in Mexico, the rate of incarceration was still only one-eighth those men born in the United States.23

A 2007 study by the Immigration Policy Center uncovered the following:

• The national incarceration rate for native-born men in the 18-39 age group was five times higher than for foreign-born men in the same group.

• Data shows that for every ethnic group, incarceration rates among young men were lowest for immigrants, even those who are least educated and least acculturated.

• Although the unauthorized immigrant population doubled to about 12 million from 1994 to 2004, the violent crime rate in the United States declined by 35.1 percent. During those years, the property crime rate also fell by 25.0 percent.24 The most notable decreases in crime occurred in cities with large numbers of undocumented immigrants, including border cities like El Paso and San Diego.25

El Paso is an example that refutes the “illegal immigrant crime” myth. In 2007, the city’s poverty rate was more than twice the national average. The median income in El Paso was nearly 26% less than the national mean. In a city that was 75% Latino, more than 25% of its residents were foreign born. Lax gun laws and a close proximity to Juarez, Mexico (where 2,500 homicides occurred in just 18 months) meant El Paso was a bloodbath, right?26

On the contrary, El Paso’s 736,000 residents suffered just 18 homicides in 2008. By contrast, Baltimore (with nearly 100,000 less people) suffered 234 killings that year. For most of the last decade, only Honolulu had a lower violent crime rate than El Paso.27

Arizona is no exception. According to FBI statistics, reports of violent crime in Arizona fell nearly 1,500 incidents from 2005 to 2008.28 Similarly, reported property crimes were down by 8,000 incidents despite an increase of 600,000 residents during those years.29 Border towns containing large immigrant populations like Nogales, Douglas, and Yuma also grew; however, their FBI crime statistics have remained essentially flat for the last decade.30

“If you want to find a safe city, first determine the size of the immigrant population,” said Jack Levin, a criminologist at Northeastern University. “If the immigrant community represents a large proportion of the population, you’re likely in one of the country’s safer cities. San Diego, Laredo, El Paso—these cities are teeming with immigrants, and they’re some of the safest places in the country.”31 .

MYTH #3: THE SUCCESS OF SHERRIF JOE ARPAIO PROVES IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT MAKES COMMUNITIES SAFER.

FALSE. Since first obtaining Federal certification to enforce immigration codes in 2005, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has remained unapologetic about his unique tactics. His website boldly insists he “continues to reduce crime with hard-hitting enforcement methods.” He also claims to have “solved several high-profile murder cases, including nine murders.”32 Unfortunately, the evidence tells a much different story.

In 2008, The East Valley Tribune of metro-Phoenix ran a series of articles33 detailing its investigation into the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO). Local officials took note as the Tribune described soaring budget deficits, lower arrest rates for non-immigration crimes, and the disturbing pattern of so many MCSO crimes remaining un-investigated.34

After the conservative Goldwater Institute studied the allegations, they published a detailed report on December 2, 2008.35 The study described exactly how the MCSO, under the leadership of Sheriff Arpaio, has failed to protect his community. Consider the following:

• Since Fiscal Year 2001, the MCSO budget (excluding jails) has nearly doubled from 37 million to 72.5 million—nearly 4 times the rate of the county’s resident growth.

• According to FBI statistics from 2004 to 2007, violent crime increased nearly 70% and homicides increased 166% in Maricopa County.

• The East Valley Tribune claimed that MCSO “tries to stifle almost anyone checking on its operations” and “keeps secret the most basic data about its police work... without any legal right to do so.” While investigating those claims, The Goldwater Institute found the MCSO paid $38,000 in legal fees to a newspaper for withholding press releases. MCSO lost another case for taking six months to provide public records.

• MCSO regularly declares a large number of cases as “cleared,” or completed (57% in 2006-07). That number is much higher than the national average (44% for violent crime and 15.8% for property crimes). After pressing MCSO, the Goldwater Institute found that only 18% of their “cleared” cases actually resulted in arrest. By comparison, 79% of Phoenix Police “clearances” end with an arrest.

• After diverting so much of their money and resources toward immigration enforcement, MCSO response times to emergency calls increased, their arrest rates dropped, and nearly 43,000 felony warrants have never been served.36

The Goldwater Institute was titled Mission Unaccomplished: The Misplaced Priorities of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office. With so many dollars paid out in budget overruns, overtime, and lawsuit settlements, one might wonder how Joe Arpaio could possibly justify his new reality TV show on FOX called, “Smile… You’re Under Arrest!”37

Mission unaccomplished, indeed. .

MYTH #4: S.B. 1070 IS CONSTITUTIONALLY SOUND BECAUSE IT “MIRRORS” EXISTING FEDERAL STATUTES.

FALSE. Former Arizona Representative JD Hayworth recently told the Arizona Republic: "The Governor did the right thing by signing Senate Bill 1070 into law... (because) it mirrors the ‘Enforcement First Act’ I authored five years ago in the United States House of Representatives. As John McCain and others serving in Washington have alternated between inaction and amnesty, Arizona acted decisively today to enforce the rule of law and truly secure our border."38

Mr. Hayworth, we have a problem: states do not secure US borders. Moreover, the “rule of law” in this country is a Constitution that prohibits states from “preempting” federal enforcement (or lack thereof). Article 1, Section 8 holds that “Congress shall have power… to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.”39 Legal experts have called 1070 “facially unconstitutional” considering that in Pennsylvania v. Nelson (1956), the Court struck down a state’s attempt to criminalize sedition. Consider the words of Chief Justice Warren:

• "As was said by Mr. Justice Holmes in Charleston & Western Carolina R. Co. v. Varnville Furniture Co: ‘When Congress has taken the particular subject matter in hand, coincidence is as ineffective as opposition, and a state law is not to be declared a help because it attempts to go farther than Congress has seen fit to go."

• "Second, federal statutes ‘touch a field in which the federal interest is so dominant that the federal system [must] be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject... Congress having thus treated seditious conduct as a matter of vital national concern, it is in no sense a local enforcement problem... sedition against the United States is not a local offense. It is a crime against the Nation. As such, it should be prosecuted and punished in the Federal courts... It is not only important, but vital, that such prosecutions should be exclusively within the control of the Federal Government...’"

• "Third, enforcement of state sedition acts presents a serious danger of conflict with the administration of the federal program. Since 1939, in order to avoid a hampering of uniform enforcement of its program by sporadic local prosecutions, the Federal Government has urged local authorities not to intervene in such matters, but to turn over to the federal authorities immediately and unevaluated all information concerning subversive activities...40

In addition, the “Supremacy Clause” states the “Constitution and the laws of the United States...shall be the supreme law of the land...anything in the constitutions or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” This means of course, that any federal law trumps any conflicting state law.41 Karl Manheim of the Loyola Law School further explains: "States have no power to pass immigration laws because it’s an attribute of foreign affairs. Just as states can‘t have their own foreign policies or enter into treaties, they can’t have their own immigration laws, either."42

Another Constitutional hurdle has Mesa Police Chief Frank Milstead concerned: How can the state can require citizens to “prove their innocence” before being accused of a crime?43

Once again, the Supreme Court disagrees: In Terry v. Ohio (1968),44 it decided no state may make it a crime for a pedestrian to refuse identification in the absence of “reasonable suspicion” (the belief that a crime has been, is being, or will be committed).45 Furthermore, the Court also limited police powers by stating no officer may arrest a suspect for failing to identify himself, if the request for ID isn’t related to the original authority to detain.46

Before one tries to suggest, “Illegals don’t have Constitutional protection,” consider federal cases Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)47 and Wong Wing v. U.S. (1896).48 For more than 100 years, the Supreme Court has held they do. In Plyler v. Doe (1982),49 the Court ruled, "Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a ‘person’ in any ordinary sense of that term... The undocumented status of these [aliens] does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that the State affords other residents."50

Time and again, the Supreme Court has maintained that cases involving “aliens” be decided solely upon the 14th Amendment principal of “equal protection under the law.” Period. Is it any wonder that Constitutional experts are so eager to challenge this bill?

Given 1070’s disregard for this precedent, one wonders, “What happened to the Tea Party patriots? Weren’t they committed to the ultimate inerrancy of our Constitution?” As Miguel Guadalupe recently asked, “Where are you…to decry this obvious encroachment on the individual liberties of the citizens of Arizona? Where are you, conservatives, [those] decrying the use of government funds and resources to form a ‘police state’ where the populace can be stopped for no other reason than moving about freely in public?”51

To be fair, The New York Times did mention several conservatives that are denouncing the bill,52 including names like Jeb Bush,53 former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson,54 Homeland Security secretary Tom Ridge,55 Bush advisor Mark McKinnon,56 and a somewhat more equivocal Karl Rove.57 Apparently, the Constitutional infringements that SB 1070 requires have the leadership of both parties equally concerned.
.

MYTH #5: FEDERAL INACTION FORCED ARIZONA TO PASS 1070 TO ENSURE THE STATE’S SECURITY & PROSPERITY.

FALSE. Legislators and public relations experts are working overtime to promote the notion they had to pass HB 1070. Why might that be? When Paul Babeu said, “In the absence of federal action, our state is now taking action. We can't afford not to take action,”58 I thought, “What we can’t afford is taking the wrong action.”

In order to fully comprehend the rush to pass 1070, one must grasp the gravity of the fiscal crisis facing Arizona. In 2008, the Center for Budget & Policy Priorities announced that Arizona had the worst budget deficit crisis ($1.7 billion) in the US.59 Two years later, the structural deficit has soared to $3.2 billion.60 Drastic cuts to education, public safety, and social services weren’t enough. Unless voters “voluntarily” pass a sales tax in May, the Legislature has already enacted “trigger mechanism” cuts that will include the following:

• $412 million more cut from elementary education funding

• $107 million more cut from university spending

• $63 million more cut from the Corrections (including layoffs and the release of felons)

• $114 million more cut from the State Health Care System

• $50 million more cut from Economic Security (including Child Protective Services)61

With November elections looming, Governor Jan Brewer’s approval rating was in danger of dipping below 40%.62 Her Republican-led Legislature also needed a diversion. In the midst of financial Armageddon, they chose to spend their time, effort, and capitol constructing a misdemeanor criminal code. While the move resulted in the Governor’s approval rating soaring to 81% among Republicans,63 Arizona is now saddled with legislation that will cost billions to implement, litigate, enforce and defend.

Days after SB 1070 was signed into law, the following economic boycotts began forming:

• In Minnesota, St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman banned all city travel to Arizona.64

• Several national conferences have pulled their events from Arizona destinations.65

• The Los Angeles Mayor is organizing California boycotts of Arizona businesses.66

• San Francisco, Boston and Oakland are also contemplating Arizona boycotts.67

• Major League Baseball might pull the 2011 All Star Game from Phoenix.68

• Discussions have begun to ban both Republican & Democratic conventions from AZ.69

• Arizona-Boycott.org has launched targets bans for business based in Arizona like UHaul, PetSmart, GoDaddy and US Airways.70

The Arizona Republic now reports that legal Latinos have begun leaving Arizona.71 If the boycotts don’t kill Arizona’s crumbling economy, imagine if the legislation actually works:

The Pew Hispanic Center suggests that of 500,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona, foreign-born employees account for 14% of the state’s work force.72 A Perryman Group study estimates that removing unauthorized immigrants from Arizona would cost $26.4 billion in annual economic output, as well as $11.7 billion in gross state product.73 “Getting rid of these workers means we are deciding as a matter of policy to shrink our economy,” said Judith Gans, a scholar at the Udall Center. “They’re filling vital gaps in our labor force.”74

Past Governors killed bills like 1070 because the financial implications were too daunting.75 However, frigid fear now grips Arizona: as Phoenix officials began battling a surge in cartel kidnapping,76 media outlets widely publicized the shooting of a Pinal County Sheriff77 and murder of Douglas rancher Rob Krentz by foreign born, organized crime.78

The misdemeanor penalties of SB 1070 were never meant to deter the cartels; neither does the threat of deportation (existing laws already deport those criminals—regularly). No, 1070 was clearly constructed for the working class. Rushing to implement 1070 is analogous to blaming an undocumented Italian deli owner for atrocities committed by the Mob. While you are busy deporting the deli worker, the criminal syndicate is just left laughing.
.
CONCLUSION

To be sure, many myths still circulate around the passing of Arizona SB 1070. However persistent they might be, a careful examination of the facts reveals the following:

• Many police agencies are mobilizing to stop SB 1070 in hopes of saving money, reducing crime, and rescuing the concept of “community based policing” for society.

• Data collected over the past century shows the migrant community in America is significantly less likely to commit violent crime than native born citizens.

• The severe escalation of violent crime in Maricopa County (and the subsequent inability of Joe Arpaio’s office to affect or investigate it) exposes the folly of investing limited, local resources on the enforcement of immigration violations.

• Constitutional experts are suing to stop SB 1070 based upon infringements to the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments (as well as the Pre-emption Clause).

• An unprecedented fiscal crisis has injected a climate of desperation into Arizona politics. Once fledgling politicians are now harnessing the horrors of recent cartel violence to justify a controversial bill that can’t help battle organized crime.

There is another myth we have yet to consider.

At a recent protest march, the Rev. Al Sharpton said, “If you don’t think (fighting 1070) is important, let me tell you something: After dark, we all look Mexican.”79 As the crowd applauded, I was left wrestling with the Reverend’s obvious implication: “Looking Mexican” is only a problem if every remaining Arizonan is a vicious, violent bigot.

Certainly, matters of institutional racism need to be addressed: after building a burgeoning construction80 and food service industry81 on the backs of undocumented workers, Arizona’s rush to pass 1070 appears (at the very least) a bit disingenuous. Regardless, the movement to block the bill is damaged when ALL supporters are categorically decried as “racists.” Communication stops, and the effort to expose the many weaknesses of this legislation suffer. Instead of branding proponents of 1070 as despicable people, I prefer to move against the bill by appealing to a higher nature at work in us all.

The obvious inaction of the Federal Government to secure our national borders should enrage us all. Border towns are now sounding an alarm, citing that our Southern states serve as a primary entry point for Al-Qaeda and other foreign terrorists.82 Unfortunately, Arizona’s new immigration law is powerless to address our national, open-border policy.

Rather, SB 1070 is a mandate for local law enforcement. It orders them how they must treat Arizona residents already here. Such directives divide us. The inevitable result is an escalation of fear, frustration, and conflict for those on both sides of this legislative debate.

In 1957, Lester B. Pearson “Misunderstanding arising from ignorance breeds fear, and fear remains the greatest enemy of peace.”83

In this controversy, misunderstanding abounds everywhere, most notably in the comments on the websites, blogs, and discussion boards around us. “If someone breaks into your home, you have every right to shoot them dead,” wrote one poster to a Tucson Fox News site. “The USA is our home, why don’t we see we have the same right? Sounds extreme, but nothing seems to be working.”84

People of integrity must work together to battle such ignorance tirelessly. If fear is our enemy, then how can we standby silently? Truth can only be found through scrutiny, so we must all examine the facts carefully.

After doing so, I can only say, “Arizona SB 1070 is truly an enemy of peace.”

First Posted 4/30/2010 by Corbet Dean .

ENDNOTES

1 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, “Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community?” (Harper & Row) 1967. http://www.drmartinlutherkingjr.com/wherewearegoing.htm

2 Edmund Burke, "A Philosophical Inquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful", 1756. http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/26912.html

3 http://zipskinny.com/?zip=85031

4 Air University Review, United States. Dept. of the Air Force, v. 29 - 1977, Pg. 15. http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/everyone_is_entitled_to_his_own_opinion_but_not_his_own_facts/

5 http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/s.1070pshs.doc.htm

6 http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

7 http://www.leei.us/main/media/AACOP_STATEMENT_ON_SENATE_BILL_1070.pdf

8 http://www.kvoa.com/news/police-officer-sues-state-over-sb-1070/

9 http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/04/29/20100429arizona-immigration-lawsuit29-ON.html

10 http://www.fox11az.com/news/local/Sheriff-Dupnik-92428474.html

11 http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2010/04/russell_pearce_hold_up_sheriff.php

12 http://www.azcentral.com/community/mesa/articles/2010/04/14/20100414immigration-law-enforcement-mesa.html

13 http://pr.thinkprogress.org/2010/04/pr20100422

14 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/cityinsider/detail?entry_id=61951

15 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/23/AR2010042304469.html

16 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126478629

17 http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2010/05/04/20100504arizona-immigration-lawsuit-phoenix-mayor-gordon.html

18 http://www.alternet.org/rights/146677/

19 Ibid.

20 http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/27/opinion/oe-bratton27

21 http://americas.irc-online.org/am/4903

22 Ibid.

23 http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/03/05/immigration_and_crime/

24 U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Data Online: Reported Crime in United States—Total, 1960-2008. http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/RunCrimeStatebyState.cfm

25 http://americas.irc-online.org/am/4903

26 http://reason.com/archives/2009/07/06/the-el-paso-miracle

27 Ibid.

28 U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Data Online: http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/RunCrimeStatebyState.cfm

29 http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/29/arizona.immigration.crime/index.html

30 http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/05/02/20100502arizona-border-violence-mexico.html

31 http://reason.com/archives/2009/07/06/the-el-paso-miracle

32 http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=9219341

33 http://www.pulitzer.org/archives/8377

34 http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/SheriffJoeArpaio12-17-08.pdf

35 http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/Common/Img/Mission%20Unaccomplished.pdf

36 http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/SheriffJoeArpaio12-17-08.pdf

37 http://theboard.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/31/americas-worst-sheriff-joe-arpaio/?pagemode=print

38 http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/04/23/20100423arizona-immigration-law-quotes.html

39 http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

40 http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/preemption.htm

41 Ibid.

42 http://latinopoliticsblog.com/2010/04/26/law-professors-say-az-sb-1070-unconstitutional-more-protest-and-coalition-building/

43 http://www.azcentral.com/community/mesa/articles/2010/04/14/20100414immigration-law-enforcement-mesa.html

44 http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0392_0001_ZS.html

45 http://policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=1150&issue_id=42007

46 Ibid.

47 http://laws.findlaw.com/us/118/356.html

48 http://laws.findlaw.com/us/163/228.html

49 http://laws.findlaw.com/us/457/202.html

50 http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/illegalrights.htm

51 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miguel-guadalupe/arizonas-sb1070-gestapo-l_b_545959.html

52 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/opinion/02rich.html

53 http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36427.html

54 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/27/AR2010042703894.html

55 http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2010/04/tom_ridge_former_governor_and.html

56 http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-04-28/bush-was-right/

57 http://thinkprogress.org/2010/04/27/rove-immigration-arizona/

58 http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/04/23/20100423arizona-immigration-law-quotes.html

59 http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2008/02/25/daily29.html

60 http://azstarnet.com/news/blogs/campus-correspondent/article_ce42e706-390a-11df-96cc-001cc4c03286.html

61 Ibid.

62 http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_governor_elections/arizona/election_2010_arizona_governor

63 Ibid.

64 http://www.azcentral.com/private/cleanprint/?1273223543800

65 http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/05/06/arizona.boycott.impact/

66 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/antonio-villaraigosa/boycott-arizona_b_557812.html

67 http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20003803-503544.html

68 http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/immigration-law-cost-arizona-star-game-push-boycott/story?id=10511724

69 http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/04/22/20100422arizona-immigration-bill-hurting-businesses.html

70 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/28/san-francisco-leads-charge-boycott-arizona-calls-cause-backlash/

71 http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/04/28/20100428arizona-immigration-law-migrants-leaving-arizona.html

72 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119760108815428771.html

73 http://americansforimmigrationreform.com/files/Impact_of_the_Undocumented_Workforce.pdf#page=69

74 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119760108815428771.html

75 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/23/politics/main6426125.shtml

76 http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6848672&page=1

77 http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2010/04/rob_krentz_redux_pinal_county.php

78 http://azstarnet.com/news/local/border/article_bba8ccf1-fe5f-5aaa-a026-3ee9b45fd360.html

79 http://www.thefoxnation.com/arizona-immigration-law/2010/05/06/sharpton-after-dark-we-all-look-mexican-riding-down-street

80 http://ebr.eller.arizona.edu/research/articles/homebuilding_economic_impact.asp

81 http://azrestaurant.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=2

82 http://www.tucsonweekly.com/tucson/other-than-mexicans/Content?oid=1077451

83 http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1957/pearson-lecture.html

84 http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/print/content/view/print/297433