Romney's VP?

Condi for VP?

by William Bigelow 

This past weekend there was a fundraising gathering for Mitt Romney in Park City, Utah. There were many Republican luminaries who attended, including VP hopefuls like Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, South Dakota Sen. John Thune, and Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, as well as Sen. John McCain and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. But many of the attendees said the star speaker was former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Ambassador Charles Cobb, who was ambassador to Iceland from 1989 to 1992, said Rice was "spectacular." Donor Kent Lucken, an international banker in Boston, said, "she rocked it."
So, of course, there are those calling for Rice to be the choice for Veep. But one wonders if they remember 2008 …
December 7, 2008, one moth after Barack Obama was elected, Rice was interviewed by Wolf Blitzer on CNN, and this is what she said about Obama:

“But of course, he is someone that I admire. He was on my committee, the Foreign Relations Committee. We have talked a number of times. He is going to do very well for the country. But eight years is a long time. The American people are wise in wanting change. Two terms is plenty. And I’m going to go back to California and on to other things.”

Three days later, December 10, 2008, being interviewed by Dan Raviv on CBS:

Raviv: Are you personally excited about Barack Obama becoming our next President and our first African-American President?
Rice: Sure, it's meaningful. It's meaningful to me personally. It's meaningful to the country. I'm a kid from Birmingham, Alabama, and until we moved to Denver, Colorado, when I was 12 I didn't have a white classmate – the whole time when I went to school in Alabama. So sure! This is a huge move forward for our country. Our country has been getting there. You know, we've had back-to-back African-American secretaries of state! We have heads of Fortune 500 companies who are black. The world's greatest golfer – not exactly a sport known for African-American dominance – is an African-American. And so, slowly but surely this country has been overcoming race.
Raviv: May I take it that you actually preferred a victory for Senator Obama, and not John McCain?
Rice: I have constantly told people that I was Secretary of State and I was not going to get into a partisan debate. And I would vote my ballot in a secret way, as all Americans do. But I just want to acknowledge that after the election took place, it was a special time for Americans.

In October, 2010, Rice appeared at the Aspen Institute in Washington, D.C., and said of Obama, "Nothing in this president's methods suggests this president is other than a defender of America's interests." Was she serious?
Condi is not the best choice for VP – especially not in the aftermath of her disastrous second term, in which she was Secretary of State, and ended up undercutting American allies like Israel.


Wayuu Purse

Supreme Court Backs Arizona’s Right to Enforce Immigration Laws

John G. Malcolm

Today’s Supreme Court decision upholding the major provision of Arizona’s S.B. 1070 immigration law is a strong rebuke of the Obama Administration.
The Administration had argued that its own immigration enforcement priorities should be treated as controlling law—that is, above the determinations of both Congress and Arizona. But the Court’s decision means that the President must go through Congress if he wishes to impede the states’ ability to enforce immigration laws within their borders.
In a judgment joined by all eight justices who participated (Justice Elena Kagan was recused), the Court found that Arizona may implement its requirement that law enforcement officers make a “reasonable attempt…to determine the immigration status” of any person they stop, detain, or arrest, if “reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien unlawfully present in the United States.” The Court found that three other provisions, which regulated alien registration, illegal aliens seeking employment, and arrest of individuals based upon possible removability, were preempted by federal law.
In this case, the Court recognized that the core of S.B. 1070, which requires officers to work collaboratively with the federal government to determine the immigration status of those who have been stopped or detained for a lawful purpose, need not be interpreted to conflict with federal law. With this decision, the Court has reaffirmed the important principle that, much as he might want to, President Obama cannot prevent the states from taking action to enforce federal immigration laws just by saying that he doesn’t want them to do so.
In 1996, as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, Congress made it clear that states retain inherent authority to cooperate in immigration enforcement and to supplement federal resources with their own. Federal officials are required by law to respond whenever state or local officers request verification of an alien’s immigration status (Homeland Security operates a 24/7 hotline for exactly that purpose). As Justice Anthony Kennedy said for the majority, “Federalism, central to the constitutional design, adopts the principle that both the National and State Governments have elements of sovereignty the other is bound to respect.”
The federal government has the exclusive authority to determine who should be admitted into the country and who should be deported from the country—a principle that the Court emphasized in preempting certain aspects of S.B. 1070. However, nothing in Arizona’s immigration check provisions modifies the conditions under which somebody can legally enter or stay in the country.
Some have argued that Section 2(B) of S.B. 1070, which the Court held was not preempted, will result in racial profiling. However, as U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli conceded during oral argument, this case did not involve any allegation of racial profiling.
In fact, S.B. 1070 explicitly prohibits racial profiling. Specifically, Section 2(B) prohibits random stops to question someone about their immigration status but permits law enforcement officers to make such an inquiry when he or she makes a “lawful stop, detention, or arrest…in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town of this state.” In other words, the stop must be lawful and predicated on a suspected violation of some non-immigration law.
If an officer legitimately stops, detains, or arrests somebody who is suspected of committing another offense and, while doing so, develops a reasonable suspicion (which must be based on articulable, objective facts, not a mere hunch) that the subject is an illegal alien, then the officer must make “a reasonable attempt” to verify or dispel that suspicion—specifically, by checking with the federal government. In short, all Arizona’s law requires is that law enforcement officers not turn a blind eye to possible violations of federal immigration laws while investigating other offenses during the course of their duties.
Arizona and other border states bear the largest burden when immigration laws are not enforced federally or when rules are overlooked. And the burden is significant. There are 2,000 miles along the southwest border, 370 of which adjoin Arizona. Illegal entries and border smuggling by “coyotes” are rampant, with an accompanying influx of drugs, dangerous criminals, and vulnerable people (who often end up as victims of human trafficking). Between 2006 and 2010, in the border town of Nogales alone, 51 drug smuggling tunnels were discovered. Home invasions and kidnappings are common in Arizona.
Illegal aliens take jobs from Americans and drive down wages. It is estimated that illegal aliens constitute 7.4 percent of the state’s workforce. To address these problems, Arizona passed S.B. 1070, the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act. Today’s decision reaffirmed that the states are not without recourse to address such a systemic problem. States should not have to beg the federal government for permission to enforce laws within their borders.
Today’s decision means that the Obama Administration may not, by executive order, prevent states like Arizona from participating in an immigration verification process set up by Congress. The President may disagree, but for his disagreement to actually have the force of law, he will have to persuade members of Congress—a refreshing change for a President who has seen fit to go it alone far too frequently. While some people in other countries will be unhappy with today’s decision, as Judge Carlos Bea stated in his dissent from the Ninth Circuit’s opinion (which has now been overturned), “We do not grant other nations’ foreign ministries a heckler’s veto.”



NEED a SAFE INVESTMENT...BANCO SOCIAL, Un Verdadero Banco

Corte Suprema: Respaldo a la ley de Arizona para hacer cumplir las leyes de inmigración

John G. Malcolm

La decisión de hoy de la Corte Suprema ratificando la disposición principal de la ley de inmigración S.B. 1070 de Arizona es una firme reprimenda a la administración Obama. La administración había argumentado que sus propias prioridades en el cumplimiento de la ley de inmigración deberían ser tratadas como ley de control, es decir, por encima de las determinaciones tanto del Congreso como de Arizona. Pero la decisión de la Corte significa que el presidente debe pasar por el Congreso si desea obstaculizar la capacidad de los estados para hacer cumplir las leyes de inmigración dentro de sus fronteras.
En una sentencia compartida por los ocho magistrados que participaban (la magistrada Elena Kagan se retiró del caso), la Corte halló que Arizona puede implementar su requerimiento de que las autoridades policiales hagan un “intento razonable…de determinar el estatus migratorio” de cualquier persona que retengan, detengan o arresten, si “existen sospechas razonables de que la persona es un extranjero presente de forma ilegal en Estados Unidos”. La Corte halló que otras tres disposiciones, que regulaban el registro de extranjeros, a los extranjeros ilegales en búsqueda de empleo y el arresto de personas basado en una posible expulsión, eran jurisdicción de la ley federal.
En este caso, la Corte reconoció que lo primordial de la S.B. 1070, que requiere que los agentes de policía trabajen en colaboración con el gobierno federal para determinar el estatus migratorio de aquellos que han sido retenidos o detenidos por un propósito legal, no es necesario interpretarlo como en conflicto con la ley federal. Con esta decisión, la Corte ha reafirmado el importante principio de que, por mucho que pudiera querer, el presidente Obama no puede impedir que los estados tomen medidas para hacer cumplir las leyes federales de inmigración sólo por decir que él no quiere que lo hagan.
En 1996, como parte de la ley de Responsabilidad ante el Inmigrante y de Reforma de la Inmigración Ilegal, el Congreso dejó claro que los estados conservan la autoridad inherente de cooperar en el cumplimiento de las leyes de inmigración y de complementar los recursos federales con los suyos propios. Los oficiales de policía federales son requeridos por la ley a responder siempre que los oficiales estatales o locales soliciten la verificación del estatus migratorio de un extranjero (Seguridad Interior tiene en funcionamiento una línea de atención telefónica permanente exactamente para esa finalidad). Como comentó el magistrado Anthony Kennedy en nombre de la mayoría de la Corte, “El federalismo, clave para el diseño constitucional, adopta el principio de que tanto el gobierno nacional como el estatal tienen elementos de soberanía que el otro está obligado a respetar”.
El gobierno federal tiene la autoridad exclusiva para determinar quién debe ser admitido en el país y quién debe ser deportado del país, un principio que la Corte enfatizó al declarar jurisdicción federal ciertos aspectos de la S.B. 1070.
Sin embargo, nada en las disposiciones de control de la inmigración de Arizona modifica las condiciones bajo las que alguien puede entrar o permanecer legalmente en el país. Hay quien ha argumentado que la Sección 2(B) de la S.B. 1070, que la Corte sostiene que no es de jurisdicción federal, dará como resultado el perfilado racial. Sin embargo, como reconoció Donald Verrilli, procurador general de Estados Unidos, durante una apelación oral, este caso no implicaba ninguna acusación de perfilado racial.
De hecho, la S.B. 1070 prohíbe explícitamente el perfilado racial. Particularmente, la Sección 2(B) prohíbe retenciones aleatorias para preguntar a alguien acerca de su estatus migratorio pero permite a los oficiales de policía que realicen tal indagación cuando dicho agente “legalmente para, detiene o arresta en el cumplimiento de cualquier otra ley u ordenanza de un condado, localidad o ciudad de este estado”. En otras palabras, la parada debe ser legal y basada en una sospecha de violación de alguna ley no migratoria. Si un agente de policía para, detiene o arresta de manera legítima a alguien que es sospechoso de cometer otra infracción y mientras la realiza, se desarrolla una sospecha razonable (que debe estar basada en hechos articulables y objetivos, no en una mera presunción) de que el sospechoso es un extranjero ilegal, entonces el agente de policía debe realizar “un intento razonable” de verificar o disipar esa sospecha, específicamente, al realizar un control con el gobierno federal. En pocas palabras, todo lo que la ley de Arizona requiere es que las autoridades policiales no hagan de la vista gorda a posibles violaciones de las leyes federales de inmigración mientras están investigando otras infracciones durante el desempeño de su deber.
Arizona y otros estados fronterizos soportan una carga pesadísima cuando las leyes de inmigración no se hacen cumplir a nivel federal o cuando las reglas son pasadas por alto. Y la carga es significativa. Hay más de 3,000 kilómetros de frontera suroeste, 515 de los cuales son frontera de Arizona. Las entradas ilegales y el contrabando fronterizo por parte de los “coyotes” se ha disparado sin control, con la consiguiente entrada de drogas, peligrosos criminales y gente vulnerable (que a menudo acaban como víctimas del tráfico de personas). Entre 2006 y 2010, sólo en la ciudad fronteriza de Nogales, se descubrieron 51 túneles para el contrabando de droga. Los allanamientos de morada y los secuestros son comunes en Arizona.
Los extranjeros ilegales quitan empleos a los americanos y hacen bajar los salarios. Se estima que los extranjeros ilegales constituyen el 7.4% de la población activa del estado. Para abordar estos problemas, Arizona aprobó la S.B. 1070, la ley Apoye a Nuestras Fuerzas de Orden Público y de Vecindarios Seguros. La decisión de hoy reafirmó que los estados no se encuentran sin recursos para abordar tales problemas sistémicos. Los estados no deberían tener que mendigar al gobierno federal para obtener permiso para hacer cumplir las leyes dentro de sus fronteras.
La decisión de hoy significa que la administración Obama no puede, por orden ejecutiva, impedir que los estados como Arizona participen en un proceso de verificación de la inmigración establecido por el Congreso. El presidente puede que no esté de acuerdo, pero para que su desacuerdo tenga realmente fuerza de ley, tendrá que persuadir a los miembros del Congreso, lo que supone un refrescante cambio para un presidente que ha visto conveniente hacer las cosas por su cuenta con demasiada frecuencia. Aunque algunas personas en otros países estarán descontentas con la decisión de hoy, tal y como el juez Carlos Bea afirmó en su discrepancia con la opinión del 9º Circuito (que ahora ha sido revocada), “No concedemos a los ministros de Asuntos Exteriores de otras naciones derecho a que nos acallen ”.

SEND UP TO $1,000 to the US...Inn Reach