Arizona Cities To Challenge SB 1070

The City Councils of Tucson and Flagstaff, Arizona have voted to bring legal actions in an effort to strike down the new Arizona immigration statute. This will bring the total number of lawsuits seeking to overturn SB 1070 to five. (Arizona Immigration Law: 2 Cities to Sue State, The Arizona Republic, May 4, 2010).

On the Cuba Broadcast Wars--The Failures of Radio Martí and the Broadcasting of "Information" into Cuba

In the great war of ideas, delivery may be as important as content.  The Cubans have been extraordinarily successful in developing ideas in politics, economics, social organization and international relations that, while they have been resisted by elites of many political hues, have made a strong impression on academics and activists within the civil society sector. Other states have been less successful, particularly the United States, even in the context of an ideological war waged within the Cuban community.  It was recently reported:

US government-backed radio and television broadcasts into Cuba reach a tiny audience there and suffer from poor editorial standards, a US Senate Committee said in a scathing report released Monday. 
Founded to give Cubans accurate, unbiased news programming, Radio Marti and TV Marti "have failed to make any discernable inroads into Cuban society or to influence the Cuban Government," said the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
The panel's report, dated April 29, notes that US government-sponsored research has found that less than two percent of Cubans listen to Radio Marti, and "claims that TV Marti has any stable viewership are suspect."
The panel, led by Democratic Senator John Kerry, sharply criticized the Office of Cuba Broadcasting (OCB) that oversees both outlets has having "failed to adhere to generally accepted journalistic standards."
"Both internal and external investigations have criticized OCB for broadcasting unsubstantiated reports from Cuba as legitimate news stories, for using offensive and incendiary language in news broadcasts, and for a lack of timeliness in news reporting," the committee said.
And "interviews with recently arrived Cuban immigrants show that among those who were familiar with the broadcasts, only a small minority thought they were 'objective.'"
The report, entitled "Cuba: Immediate Action Is Needed to Ensure the Survivability of Radio and TV Marti," calls for moving OCB to Washington and integrate it with Voice of America (VOA) to boost its standards.

US Senate panel urges overhaul of broadcasts to Cuba, YahooNews, May 3, 2010.Nothing breeds criticism like failure.  The United States, like other nations, might have less qualms about a program of aggressive information dissemination if it could be shown that there were positive effects.  But what the Radio Martí program seems to expose are divisions within the Cuban community, even those otherwise united by opposition to the current government.  See Larry Catá Backer, How Not to Engage in Broadcast Warfare: On TV Martí as Failure and (Limited) Success, Law at the End of the Day, July 17, 2009.

But do not think that the criticism is ideological, or that it suggests a legal argument for the end of such programs, grounded either in national or international law.  The anger was directed at mismanagement and incompetence rather than on the idea that it is somehow wrong to project information into other states to further the interests of the broadcasting state.  Thus, the Report suggests that "OCB must also "clean up its operation" by implementing editorial standards and drawing better on-air staff and managers, and "spend less money on measuring audience size and focus more on quality programming."" US Senate panel urges overhaul of broadcasts to Cuba, YahooNews, May 3, 2010.  For a different view see the views of my colleague John Spicer Nichols expressed in his testimony before Congress: TV Marti Has Virtually No Audience, Violates International Law, And Should Be Closed, Prepared Statement Of John S. Nichols Before the Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight Committee on Foreign Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, Hearings on "TV Marti: A Station in Search of an Audience?', June 17, 2009.

Arizona's Flagrant Foul

Guest Post from Pedro A. Malavet, Professor of Law, University of Florida
Fredric G. Levin College of Law

I do not like the San Antonio Spurs. I probably should like them, but I do not. I have disliked them intensely since they stole a chance at the NBA championship from the Phoenix Suns when a dirty play by the Spurs combined with a stupid NBA rule. Nothing would please me more than to see the Spurs lose their current series against the Suns and judging from the highlights on ESPN, it is a well-played series.

But I will not watch. When their game came on last night after the Cavaliers were defeated by the Celtics, I simply changed channels. And I will not watch them play on any channel, including TNT which is transmitting the current series, until the Arizona let’s-harass-a-latino-today law (so often misidentified as an “immigration” law) is repealed. The legislature and governor of the state of Arizona have made it law for their law enforcement to harass their citizens who are of Latina/o descent. I am Puerto Rican, and therefore a citizen of the United States. But this law creates a climate in which being Puerto Rican (i.e., from a U.S. territory), Arizonan (i.e., from a U.S. territory that became a state), or Mexican (documented or not) does not matter—as long as your name is José, Pedro or María, you can expect Arizona cops to harass you. This is not a matter of politics. It is a matter of race and racism. Sports organizations have often led the way in fighting racism. Will the NBA and TNT do so now?

America's Pastime

Last Friday, Major League Baseball Players Association Executive Director Michael Weiner issued the statement below on SB 1070. Following the leadership of the NFL in pushing Arizona to finally honor Dr. King with a holiday, baseball leadership should consider a similar stance. The 2011 All-Star game should be moved so long as Arizona's outrageous law remains in effect. For me, judicial delay of implementation pending trial would not be enough--the legislature must recognize the outcry and weight of a collective national conscience and regain its morality. Only then can we enjoy the so-called American pastime of baseball taking place in a venue where the new pastime has become Sheriff Joe hurling spitballs at our legacy as a nation of immigrants. Here is the Players' statement:

“The recent passage by Arizona of a new immigration law could have a negative impact on hundreds of Major League players who are citizens of countries other than the United States. These international players are very much a part of our national pastime and are important members of our Association. Their contributions to our sport have been invaluable, and their exploits have been witnessed, enjoyed and applauded by millions of Americans. All of them, as well as the Clubs for whom they play, have gone to great lengths to ensure full compliance with federal immigration law.

The impact of the bill signed into law in Arizona last Friday is not limited to the players on one team. The international players on the Diamondbacks work and, with their families, reside in Arizona from April through September or October. In addition, during the season, hundreds of international players on opposing Major League teams travel to Arizona to play the Diamondbacks. And, the spring training homes of half of the 30 Major League teams are now in Arizona. All of these players, as well as their families, could be adversely affected, even though their presence in the United States is legal. Each of them must be ready to prove, at any time, his identity and the legality of his being in Arizona to any state or local official with suspicion of his immigration status. This law also may affect players who are U.S. citizens but are suspected by law enforcement of being of foreign descent.

The Major League Baseball Players Association opposes this law as written. We hope that the law is repealed or modified promptly. If the current law goes into effect, the MLBPA will consider additional steps necessary to protect the rights and interests of our members.

My statement reflects the institutional position of the Union. It was arrived at after consultation with our members and after consideration of their various views on this controversial subject.”

Dean Johnson on the Constitutionality of the Arizona Immigration Law

Today Dean Kevin Johnson (UC Davis) has offered an excellent analysis of the constitutionality of SB 1070 -- the Arizona immigration statute. (Kevin R. Johnson, Arizona Law Will Likely Collide With the Constitution - and Lose, The Sacramento Bee, May 2, 2010). Among other things, Dean Johnson concludes that "[b]y seeking to regulate immigration, the Arizona law plainly intrudes on the federal immigration enforcement scheme and therefore violates the Supremacy Clause" of the U.S. Constitution. As there are now three federal lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of SB 1070, Dean Johnson's analysis should provide helpful guidance for the attorneys and the federal courts as they move toward a resolution of this matter.

Third Lawsuit Opposing SB 1070:Salgado v. Brewer

A third lawsuit has been initiated challenging SB 1070. Phoenix police officer David Salgado has filed in Phoenix federal court an action alleging, among other things, that the new Arizona immigration statute places him in a dilemma: it requires him to enforce an unconstitutional statute and subjects him to potential liability and discipline if he does not enforce it. A copy of the complaint is available (http://www.azcentral.com/ic/pdf/0429immigration-lawsuit-salgado.pdf).

Folks are paying attention!

The Faculty Lounge--one of the leading legal blogs in the country just posted a nice entry on our efforts. Kudos to everyone that is part of this effort to provide counter-narratives, and thank you to all of our recent comments. They are much appreciated and continue to inspire and empower us. Remember the old Latino/a rally call--stand up and say--"Presente."

Peace,

E

Here is a link to the Lounge site and below is their entry:

http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2010/04/law-profs-against-arizona-sb-1070.html

Breathing While Brown: Law Profs Against Arizona SB 1070

Thanks to Professor Ediberto Roman of Florida International Univ. School of Law, and Nuestras Voces Latinas, for organizing the law prof response to Arizona's shameful move to criminalize breathing while brown. The petition below (full text after the jump) calls for the repeal of SB 1070, and for federal action to protect the public against gross civil rights violations. It will be delivered to key members of the Obama Administration, congressional leaders, and the press. To add your name to the list of supporters, contact Prof. Roman directly at romane@fiu.edu.
Immigration and Constitutional Law Experts Against SB 1070
The undersigned law professors, immigration experts, and interested organizations write this petition requesting the Governor and the Legislature of the State of Arizona to repeal SB 1070, or in the alternative, calling upon Congress to conduct hearings on Arizona’s ultra vires act of authorizing local police to enforce federal immigration laws without an express delegation from Congress. The petitioners also urge President Obama to direct the Justice Department Civil Rights Division to mobilize quickly to educate the public how to report civil rights violations associated with SB 1070.
With the passage of SB 1070, the state of Arizona has ignored legal precedent striking down similar state encroachments on federal supremacy relating to immigration. Moreover, courts have held similar encroachments to be violative of Due Process and Equal Protection.

SB 1070 is also unwise public policy that will likely result in repugnant police action such as racial profiling. The law also violates the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the United States Constitution. It turns the presumption of innocence on its ear and will inevitably lead to wrongful and exceedingly long incarcerations. Specifically, SB 1070 allows local law enforcement to incarcerate individuals until the local authorities are contacted by the U.S. government. Under the Act, whatever a law enforcement has "reasonable suspicion" that the person "is an alien who is unlawfully present int he United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person. The person's immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373 (c)." Presumably, under SB 1070, an accused undocumented person can either file a write of Habeas Corpus in federal court or wait for the federal government to verify his or her status.
Despite contemporary disdain for stereotyping and stigma, this law will empower state police officers to request documentation from people to ascertain whether they are undocumented, which will likely be based solely on the appearance of these presumed illegals or the language they speak. Reminiscent of the shameful raids during one of this country’s darkest hours—Operation Wetback of the 1950s—the efforts by local authorities in Arizona may very well lead to the wrongful incarceration and even deportations of far too many United States citizens and legal residents. Through this act, local authorities will be empowered to presume individuals—most likely Hispanic members of its community— illegal. Such efforts must not be tolerated. SB 1070 will also likely cause undocumented and other members of the immigrant community to be vulnerable to crime, as they will not report crimes to law enforcement if they think that will put them in jeopardy. Not only is this law unconstitutional and unwise public policy, it will cost local and federal taxpayers millions in terms of enforcement, in efforts at verifying status of detained individuals, and through the countless law suits likely resulting from wrongful arrests and false imprisonment. Arizona's act is not only violative of domestic constitutional norms but also the rights to equality and non-discrimination enshrined in binding international human rights treaties, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, that the United States has signed and ratified.
Therefore, the undersigned respectfully request the state of Arizona to rescind its unconstitutional and unwise law, or in the alternative, we urge President Obama and the federal government to step in and protect the civil and human rights of the people of this republic.