“This scandal could be enormous,” said Dick Morris, a former White House adviser to President Bill Clinton, on the Fox News Sean Hannity show last night. “It’s Valerie Plame only 10 times bigger, because it’s illegal and Joe Sestak is either lying or the White House committed a crime.

“Obviously, the offer of a significant job in the White House could not be made unless it was by Rahm Emanuel or cleared with Rahm Emanuel,” he said. If the job offer was high enough that it also had Obama’s apppoval, “that is a high crime and misdemeanor.”

“In other words, an impeachable offense?” Hannity asked.

Aaron Klein’s exposé of Barack Obama’s notorious connections with extremists and America-haters is scorching the best-seller lists. Order your autographed copy of “The Manchurian President” today.

“Absolutely,” said Morris.

The controversy revolves around an oft-repeated statement by Rep. Sestak, D-Pa., that he had been offered a job by the Obama administration in exchange for dropping out of the senatorial primary against Obama supporter Sen. Arlen Specter.

Sestak White House scandal called ‘impeachable offense’

‘It’s Valerie Plame, only bigger, a high crime and misdemeanor’

By Drew Zahn
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

If a Democratic member of Congress is to be believed, there’s someone in the Obama administration who has committed a crime – and if the president knew about it, analysts say it could be grounds for impeachment. 

“This scandal could be enormous,” said Dick Morris, a former White House adviser to President Bill Clinton, on the Fox News Sean Hannity show last night. “It’s Valerie Plame only 10 times bigger, because it’s illegal and Joe Sestak is either lying or the White House committed a crime. 

“Obviously, the offer of a significant job in the White House could not be made unless it was by Rahm Emanuel or cleared with Rahm Emanuel,” he said. If the job offer was high enough that it also had Obama’s apppoval, “that is a high crime and misdemeanor.” 

“In other words, an impeachable offense?” Hannity asked. 

Aaron Klein’s exposé of Barack Obama’s notorious connections with extremists and America-haters is scorching the best-seller lists. Order your autographed copy of “The Manchurian President” today. 

“Absolutely,” said Morris. 

The controversy revolves around an oft-repeated statement by Rep. Sestak, D-Pa., that he had been offered a job by the Obama administration in exchange for dropping out of the senatorial primary against Obama supporter Sen. Arlen Specter. 

(Story continues below)

Sestak said he refused the offer. He continued in the Senate primary and defeated Specter for the Democratic nomination. 

But Karl Rove, longtime White House adviser to President George W. Bush, said the charge is explosive because of federal law

“This is a pretty extraordinary charge: ‘They tried to bribe me out of the race by offering me a job,’” he said on Greta Van Susteran’s “On the Record” program on the Fox News Channel. “Look, that’s a violation of the federal code: 18 USC 600 says that a federal official cannot promise employment, a job in the federal government, in return for a political act.

“Somebody violated the law. If Sestak is telling the truth, somebody violated the law,” Rove said. “Section 18 USC 211 says you cannot accept anything of value in return for hiring somebody. Well, arguably, providing a clear path to the nomination for a fellow Democrat is something of value.

He continued, citing a third law passage: “18 USC 595, which prohibits a federal official from interfering with the nomination or election for office. … ‘If you’ll get out, we’ll appoint you to a federal office,’ – that’s a violation of the law.”

Staffers with Sestak’s congressional office did not respond to WND requests for comment. But the congressman repeatedly confirmed that he was offered the position and refused and that any further comments would have to come from someone else.

“I’ve said all I’m going to say on the matter. … Others need to explain whatever their role might be,” Sestak said on CNN this week. “I have a personal accountability; I should have for my role in the matter, which I talked about. Beyond that, I’ll let others talk about their role.”

That’s not fulfilling his responsibilities, Rove said. He said Sestak needs to be forthcoming with the full story so “the American people can figure out whether or not he’s participating in a criminal cover-up along with federal officials.”

The Obama White House has tried to minimize the issue.

“Lawyers in the White House and others have looked into conversations that were had with Congressman Sestak, and nothing inappropriate happened,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has stated.

Gibbs told the White House press corps, “Whatever conversations have been had are not problematic.”

And on CBS’ “Face the Nation” he said, “I’m not going to get further into what the conversations were. People who looked into them assure me they weren’t inappropriate in any way.”

But the administration also is taking no chances on what might be discovered.

According to Politico, the Justice Department has rejected a request from Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., for a special counsel to investigate and reveal the truth of the controversy.

The report said Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich confirmed no special counsel would be needed. But the report said Weich also gave no indication that the Justice Department actually was looking into the claims by Sestak.

“We assure you that the Department of Justice takes very seriously allegations of criminal conduct by public officials. All such matters are reviewed carefully by career prosecutors and law enforcement agents, and appropriate action, if warranted, is taken,” Weich wrote in the letter.

Issa had suggested that the alleged job offer may run afoul of federal bribery statutes.

He said in a statement to Politico, “The attorney general’s refusal to take action in the face of such felonious allegations undermines any claim to transparency and integrity that this administration asserts.”

He’s also made a decision to raise the profile of his concerns.

“The bottom line is all fingers are being pointed back to the White House,” he said in a statement released as ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

“This Chicago-style politicking is an assault on our democracy and is downright criminal. President Obama faces a critical choice – he can either live up to his rhetoric of transparency and accountability by disclosing who inside his White House tried to manipulate an election by bribing a U.S. Congressman or he can allow his administration to continue this stonewalling and relinquish the mantle of change and transparency he is so fond of speaking on.”

Issa suggested, “Could the reason why Congressman Joe Sestak refuses to name names is because the very people who tried to bribe him are now his benefactors? For months, Sestak has repeatedly said without equivocation that the White House illegally offered him a federal job in exchange for dropping out of the race. Was Joe Sestak embellishing what really happened, or does he have first-hand knowledge of the White House breaking the law? If what he said is the truth, Joe Sestak has a moral imperative to come forward and expose who within the Obama Administration tried to bribe him.”

Michael Steele, the Republican National Committee chairman, as well as Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, have joined the chorus suggesting the White House needs to answer some questions.

Former judge Andrew Napolitano, an analyst for Fox News, said the level of the offer simply isn’t an issue.

“It wouldn’t matter if it was a job as a janitor. Offering him anything of value to get him to leave a political race is a felony, punishable by five years in jail,” he said.

The Section 600 statute states:

Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

Douglas Sosnik, the White House political director for Bill Clinton, said offering jobs to political friends is “business as usual,” but said Obama’s promise was that “business as usual” wouldn’t continue in his White House.

“It cuts against the Obama brand,” he told the New York Times.

Ron Kaufman, who served under the first President Bush, also told the newspaper such offers are not unusual.

“But here’s the difference – the times have changed and the ethics have changed and the scrutiny has changed. This is the kind of thing people across America are mad about,” Kaufman said.

WND previously reported on the Sestak controvesy and a similar one concerning a Democrat Senate candidate in Colorado, Andrew Romanoff.

The Denver Post said Jim Messina, Obama’s deputy chief of staff and “a storied fixer in the White House political shop, suggested a place for Romanoff might be found in the administration and offered specific suggestions.”

Romanoff at the time was challenging another major Obama supporter, Sen. Michael Bennet, for the Democratic primary for the Senate seat from Colorado. He has since won top-line position over Bennet in a coming primary.

The report said Romanoff turned down the overture, but it is “the kind of hardball tactics that have come to mark the White House’s willingness to shape key races across the country, in this case trying to remove a threat to a vulnerable senator by presenting his opponent a choice of silver or lead.”

The newspaper affirmed “several top Colorado Democrats” described the situation, even though White House spokesman Adam Abrams said, “Mr. Romanoff was never offered a position within the administration.”

Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation, who has been monitoring the Obama administration, told WND the offer of reward for some government official’s actions raises questions of legal liability.

“There’s a federal statute and federal law seems to make clear if you offer a government official some sort of remuneration, directly or indirectly, it’s a crime,” he said.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=158617

Photo: nonac@Flickr

Upset by an ad placed in a Phoenix newspaper, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is calling on Arizonans to avoid traveling to Mexico.

The half-page full-color advertisement appearing in Friday’s The Arizona Republic features a man who appears to be in the military gazing through binoculars with words proclaiming, “We are looking for people from Arizona.”

In a news release issued Monday, Arpaio says the ad “went well beyond being irresponsible, it appears to threaten Arizonans.”

The advertisement was, in fact, intended to draw tourists from Arizona. It was paid for by Sonora Turismo, an agency in the Mexican state of Sonora.

Spokesman Adolfo Salido said the ad was to run for two days and that only half of it was published Friday. The rest ran in Saturday’s paper and included the caption “In Sonora, we are looking for people from Arizona who want to have a great time;” that ad pictured people on the beach, having fun.

Javier Tapia, the coordinator for tourism for Sonora, said Monday that the Mexican state is “very interested in people from Arizona coming to have a great time. We don’t want to scare anyone. We are very friendly.”

Arpaio’s call to refrain from travel comes amid calls for boycotts of Arizona from cities and groups, including some in Mexico, over the state’s tough new law cracking down on illegal immigrants.

Photo: Reality TV Magazine

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/05/24/20100524joe-arpaio-wants-arizonans-to-boycott-mexico.html#ixzz0oyfxmZeN

Part of Giffords’ district borders Mexico.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer’s spokesman said the governor hadn’t been told of the move prior to her office being contacted by The Associated Press and had no immediate comment.

In 2006, President George W. Bush sent thousands of troops to the border to perform support duties that tie up immigration agents. The troops wouldn’t perform significant law enforcement duties.

That program has since ended, and politicians in border states have called for troops to be sent there to curb human and drug smuggling and prevent Mexico’s drug violence from spilling over into the United States.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9FU1TN05&show_article=1

AP file photo

“I know there are going to be pundits out there who are going to try to minimize the significance of tonight’s election,” Djou told a crowd of jubilant supporters after winning the special election to fill the vacancy in Hawaii’s 1st Congressional District.

“These pundits are going to say the only reason this evening occurred is because of unique political circumstances,” he added. “These pundits are going to tell you to ignore the results of what happened here tonight. We’re here to tell them they are wrong.”

Djou won with close to 40 percent of the vote in the mail-in special election, beating Democrats Colleen Hanabusa, with 31 percent, and Ed Case, 28 percent.

He now will head to Washington to take over Office 1502 in the Longworth Building, once occupied by Democrat Neil Abercrombie. The last of Abercrombie’s staff packed up last week.

“I congratulate Mr. Djou,” Abercrombie said in a statement. “Serving in the United States House of Representatives, for whatever period of time, is a great honor and an even greater responsibility.”

He added, “The majority of voters in the district supported Democratic candidates in this special election. I am confident that a Democrat will win the congressional race in the general election.”

The two Democrats also turned their eyes toward the party primary in September, as both vowed to continue the fight for the right to face Djou in a one-on-one vote in November.

The applause from Djou’s victory party could be heard six time zones away in Washington, D.C., where national party leaders trumpeted a victory on President Barack Obama’s home turf.

“I congratulate Charles Djou for his victory and a successful campaign based on the widely shared values of cutting spending, shrinking government and creating real, permanent American jobs,” said U.S. Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, chairman of the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee. “I have no doubt that Hawaii families will be well-represented in Congress as he joins our fight to return common sense economic policies and fiscal sanity to Washington.”

Although Djou emerged the victor, he still could be considered the underdog, as Hanabusa and Case combined for 59 percent.

Democrats will be looking to regroup and recapture the seat behind a single candidate in November.

The party will have to overcome a divide that many, including the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, blamed for handing the election to the GOP.

Most of Hawaii’s Democratic establishment, led by U.S. Sen. Dan Inouye, backed Hanabusa, the state Senate president, while also exhibiting an open dislike of Case for his failed 2006 Senate run against U.S. Sen. Dan Akaka. National Democrats appeared to favor Case as the more electable candidate but shied away from picking either.

Inouye plans to continue backing Hanabusa.

“Naturally, notwithstanding the polls and notwithstanding the odds, I was hoping that Colleen would win,” Inouye said. “However, I’m certain that this fall, this November, she will do very well.”

Although recent polls showed Djou comfortably ahead, followed by Case, Hanabusa benefited from strong union support that is likely to show up again this fall.

“This campaign had to overcome a lot of adversity to finish where we did,” she said. “We had people saying we didn’t have a chance and we should drop out.

“It showed everyone that no matter what is being said, the bottom line was that voters in the 1st Congressional believed in us.”

Case had hoped for a late surge in voters to help push him over the top, but it never materialized.

“We took $1 million of attack ads from Hanabusa and Djou,” Case said. “Clearly, Charles leveled all of his fire at me for the last three to four weeks — Hanabusa was unscathed — and I think that probably had a significant impact.”

The DCCC, which spent $300,000 in attack ads against Djou but pulled resources out of Hawaii this month because of the local party’s failure to rally behind one candidate, tried to downplay Djou’s victory.

By B.J. Reyes
Star Bulletin
http://www.starbulletin.com/news/20100523_Djou_wins_US_House_seat.html

Photo: DENNIS ODA / DODA@STARBULLETIN.COM

In June 2009, he transitioned from active duty to the USAF Reserve to focus on representing the people of Arizona’s 8th Congressional District.

As a combat veteran of Operation Enduring Freedom, he has provided Close Air Support and rescue escort to Joint American Forces and Coalition troops on the ground in Afghanistan.

Brian is running for Congress because the 2010 election will be the most critical in a generation. Will we surrender our economy and the future of our country to the whims of politicians, or will we rely on the ingenuity of millions of free people?
Brian says that Arizona needs representatives in Congress who understand the proper and essential role of government: to protect and defend the rights of citizens.

If Brian is elected he says he will work tirelessly to ensure you the economic opportunity and individual liberty guaranteed by our Constitution.

For more visit http://www.brianmillerforcongress.com

Photo By Donald Lowery

Proposition 100 was passing by more than a 3-2 ratio late Tuesday, according to preliminary returns.

The measure increases the state sales tax

by 1 cent per dollar, to 6.6 cents. It will take effect in two weeks.

“This is the beginning of Arizona’s comeback,” Brewer said as victory appeared certain.

The tax will bring sales-tax levies for purchases made in Phoenix to 9.3 cents on the dollar. Other tax measures in Valley communities were meeting a mixed fate: In Gilbert, voters were rejecting a proposed quarter-cent increase in the local sales tax, and the creation of a property tax in Litchfield Park appeared headed for defeat. In Tempe, a 0.2 cent sales-tax hike was passing.

The statewide sales tax is not a silver bullet for the state’s budget woes. Cuts that have led to the elimination of all-day kindergarten, reductions in health care for low-income Arizonans, a freeze on the KidsCare program and the closure of several state parks and highway rest stops will not be reversed.

The estimated $1 billion a year from the tax will go to education, public safety and health and human services. But tax proponents warn that further cuts are likely as the state climbs out of a recession.

Education appeared to be the winning ingredient. The Yes on 100 campaign relied heavily on appeals to the needs of schools and noted repeatedly that two-thirds of the revenue would go to education.

Teri Martin was typical of those who voted “yes.”

“My kids go to school right there,” she said, pointing to Gilbert Elementary School. “Their class sizes have gotten so big. I mean, they’ve cut art teachers, they’ve cut librarians, speech therapy.”

The remaining third of the tax revenue is split between public safety and health and human services. The tax expires on May 1, 2013.

The passage is a win for Brewer, a Republican, who bucked many in her party to push for the tax increase.

“Doing the right thing almost always means doing the hard thing, and today, (voters) did the hard thing,” Brewer told a subdued crowd of about 200 gathered at Madison No. 1 Middle School in Phoenix.

She choked up as she repeated her admonition that the vote was not about her political future but about what’s right for Arizona.

Still, the success of Prop. 100 will likely give Brewer a boost in August’s crowded GOP primary. All of her opponents opposed the tax.

Brewer reached out to those who voted “no.”

“I respect you, and I’ve heard you,” she said.

Opponents said the temporary tax increase was an easy out for state government, and they argued the state must live within its means, just as many residents have done during the recession.

“I think folks will be disappointed that the tax is not going to solve the problems they were told it was going to solve,” said Republican state Sen. Thayer Verschoor, chairman of the Ax the Tax Committee.

Tempe residents Al and Joan Laninga, retirees and registered Republicans, voted “no.”

Although she initially leaned toward the tax increase, Joan said the “yes” campaign changed her mind. The heavy focus on education was a “scare tactic,” said Joan, 71, a retired teacher.

“What they need to do is manage the money they have,” she said of state officials. “We pay a lot of taxes. We buy a lot, and tourists buy a lot.”

But Brewer said tax collections have plunged since the recession, and she and lawmakers have responded by cutting $2 billion from the budget over two years. The apparent passage marks the second time in 10 years that voters have agreed to increase the sale tax in the name of education.

The “yes” vote puts Arizona in league with numerous other states that raised taxes to cope with declining state budgets.

Results won’t be official until the May 28 canvass.

The campaign was a lopsided affair, with the Yes on 100 effort raising more than $2 million, compared with $1,200 from opponents. The “yes” campaign put a heavy emphasis on early voting, and it paid off: In Maricopa County, 66 percent of the mail-in vote was in favor of the tax increase.

The measure was passing in 14 of the 15 counties, preliminary results showed, trailing only in Mohave County.

Photo by Daquella @ flickr

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/05/19/20100519salestax-electionday0519.html#ixzz0oNsUc2RY

After giving the anti-big government movement its most significant political victory yet, Paul said the Tea Party Movement has a message that is loud and clear and does not mince words.

“We have come to take our government back,” he said in his victory speech, drawing thunderous applause from his supporters.

“It’s just a tremendous mandate for the Tea Party,” he said. “It cannot be overstated that people want something new. They don’t want the same old, same old politicians and I think they think the system is broken and needs new blood.”

Paul was leading with 59 percent of the vote to Grayson’s 37 percent.

Secretary of State Grayson conceded the race, telling his supporters to “put all differences aside” and unite behind Paul.

“No candidate ever enjoys coming up short but in this moment of great challenges for our nation it is clear to me that theres much more at stake,” he said.

Paul is a 47-year-old Bowling Green eye surgeon who had never before run for office and turned to the Internet fundraising model used by his father to pay for his campaign. Grayson stayed competitive drawing heavy financial support from traditional GOP donors inside Kentucky.

The Kentucky primary is one of several high-stakes Senate races in three states that political analysts are closely watching to determine the mood of the country’s electorate less than five months before November’s elections in which Republicans will seek to regain control of both houses in Congress.

Sen. Arlen Specter is fighting for his political career in Pennsylvania against Rep. Joe Sestak in the Democratic primary. And Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln is trying to save her job in Arkansas against Lt. Gov. Bill Halter.

In a fourth race with national implications, Republican Tim Burns and Democrat Mark Critz vied to fill out the final few months in the term of the late Rep. John Murtha in southwestern Pennsylvania.

In Kentucky, Grayson was backed by the state’s Republican establishment while Paul enjoyed the support of the Tea Party, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, retiring Sen. Jim Bunning and conservative Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina.

Democrats quickly sought to cast Paul’s victory as a loss for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who backed Grayson.

“Today, Kentucky Republicans selected Rand Paul as their Senate nominee, handing Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell a stunning loss,” said Democratic National Chairman Tim Kaine in a written statement.

“In a show of weakness for the Minority Leader, and in a race that symbolized the fight over the heart and soul of the Republican Party, Rand Paul overcame McConnell’s handpicked candidate by a large margin,” he said. “Unfortunately for Republicans, ordinary Americans are unlikely to be receptive to extreme candidates like Rand Paul in the general election this November.”

Murray resident Bill Osburn said he voted for Paul because “he’s not a politician.”

“I’m against the establishment. They’re all crooked, unreliable and selfish for power,” said Osburn, 79, a military retiree. “We need citizen representatives, not political politicians.”

The two leading Democratic Senate candidates, Lt. Gov. Daniel Mongiardo and state Attorney General Jack Conway, were locked in a close race. Mongiardo barely lost six years ago to Bunning.

Although Kentucky is solidly Democratic by voter registration, it tends to vote Republican in federal races. The GOP holds both of the state’s Senate seats and four of six House seats, and Republican John McCain carried the state in last year’s presidential election with 57 percent of the vote.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/18/tea-party-favorite-rand-paul-wins-senate-gop-primary-kentucky/

Photo By Gage @ Flickr

After a searching the area no suspects were found. Over the last year the Tucson Bordder Patrol has seized approximately 552,000 pounds of marijuana, estimated to be worth $441 million.

Photo by O.Cosma @ Flickr

NEW YORK (AP) – The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama’s controversial former pastor, said in a letter obtained by The Associated Press that he is “toxic” to the Obama administration and that the president “threw me under the bus.”

In his strongest language to date about the administration’s 2-year-old rift with the Chicago pastor, Wright told a group raising money for African relief that his pleas to release frozen funds for use in earthquake-ravaged Haiti would likely be ignored.

“No one in the Obama administration will respond to me, listen to me, talk to me or read anything that I write to them. I am ‘toxic’ in terms of the Obama administration,” Wright wrote the president of Africa 6000 International earlier this year.

“I am ‘radioactive,’ Sir. When Obama threw me under the bus, he threw me under the bus literally!” he wrote. “Any advice that I offer is going to be taken as something to be avoided. Please understand that!”

The White House didn’t respond to requests for comment Monday about Wright’s remarks. Several phone messages left by the AP for Wright at the Trinity United Church of Christ, where he is listed as a pastor emeritus, were not returned. Wright’s spokeswoman, his daughter Jeri Wright, did not immediately comment on the substance of the letter.

Then-Sen. Obama cut ties with Wright when his more incendiary remarks became an Internet sensation in the spring of 2008. At a National Press Club appearance in April 2008, he claimed the U.S. government could plant AIDS in the black community, praised Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan and suggested Obama was putting his pastor at arm’s length for political purposes while privately agreeing with him.

Obama denounced Wright as “divisive and destructive” and later cut ties to the pastor altogether and left Wright’s church.

The letter was sent Feb. 18 to Joseph Prischak, the president of Africa 6000 International in Erie, Pa. Wright subsequently agreed to write a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on the group’s behalf to try to get access to millions of dollars.

Wright’s original letter ranting against Obama’s treatment of him surfaced in an appeal filed by federal inmate Arthur Morrison, boxing great Muhammad Ali’s one-time manager, who was convicted of making phone threats.

Charles Lofton, Wright’s executive assistant, told The Associated Press that he faxed a copy of the letter to Morrison’s attorney as requested. A copy of the faxed letter signed by Wright showed that it was sent from the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago on March 31 to the fax number for Goodwin’s law office in Tulsa, Okla.

Prischak, of Africa 6000 International, is a business partner of Morrison, who has been imprisoned for nearly 18 years after he was convicted of making phone threats between 1989 to 1992 to hospitals where an ex-girlfriend worked.

Prischak told Wright in a Feb. 11 letter that he was seeking the clergyman’s help in reaching out to the U.S. Treasury Department. He said that Uday Hussein, the son of Saddam Hussein, had entrusted 87 million British pounds in 1990 to Morrison and Ali to buy pharmaceuticals, milk and food for the children of Iraq.

Prischak said the money was never spent because Morrison was imprisoned. He sought Wright’s help in lobbying U.S. authorities to permit 25 million British pounds in interest from the money held in an overseas account to be allowed to be sent to faith-based groups for the children of Haiti.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100518/D9FP4JRG0.html

Photo by Violentz @ flickr

Two officers are challenging the law in court, while police unions that lobbied for it are defending it against criticism from police officials.

Both sides are debating how a law such as Arizona’s can be enforced, without leading to racial profiling of Hispanics and without alienating residents in Hispanic neighborhoods with whom police have spent years trying to build trust.

“Before the signing of this bill, citizens would wave at me,” said David Salgado, a 19-year Phoenix police officer who sued the city and the governor asking that the law be blocked. “Now they don’t even want to make eye contact.”

Still, police unions say, many of their officers in Arizona, the nation’s busiest corridor for illegal immigration and smuggling, are tired of feeling helpless when dealing with people they believe are in the country illegally. Those officers want a tool to arrest them.

“Crime is not based upon skin color, it’s based upon conduct,” said Mark Spencer, president of the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, the union representing Phoenix officers that lobbied aggressively for the law.

It requires police enforcing another law to verify a person’s immigration status if there’s “reasonable” suspicion they are in the U.S. illegally.

Several Arizona police chiefs and sheriffs say, as hard as officers try not to profile, enforcing the law will inevitably lead to it. They say it will end up taking time away from solving crimes in their cities and towns.

“When you get a law that leads a state down this path, where the enforcement is targeted to a particular segment of the population, it’s very difficult not to profile,” said Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris, a critic of the law.

On Monday, police bosses from Maryland and Nevada condemned the law, saying that it could suck up vital resources and destroy delicate relationships with immigrant communities if implemented in their own states. There are at least nine other states considering similar legislation.

Police Chief Thomas Manger of Montgomery County, Md., in suburban Washington said he doesn’t have the resources or the desire to enforce federal immigration violations by people who aren’t disrupting the community.

“If they’re not committing a crime here, frankly, I’m not sure how it enhances public safety to target those people for removal,” he said.

Manger spoke on a conference call with the sheriff of Washoe County, Nev., and the retired police chief of Sacramento, Calif. The call was organized by the Law Enforcement Engagement Initiative, which advocates immigration reform.

Their criticism added to the chorus of opponents since the law’s adoption April 23. There have been calls for boycotts, and some state and local governments have decided to stop doing business with the state in protest.

On Monday, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed the latest challenge to the law in federal court on behalf of labor unions and others.

The law takes effect July 29 unless blocked by the pending court challenges. Being in the country illegally would become a state crime, and Arizona residents could sue an agency or officer they feel isn’t enforcing immigration laws to the fullest extent possible.

Arizona’s legislation was passed in part with the lobbying muscle of the unions. An association of police chiefs tried to defeat or soften it.

Tucson police officer Martin Escobar also filed a lawsuit, arguing there’s no “race-neutral” criteria for him to suspect that someone’s in the country illegally. Some say it would be impossible to enforce without relying on indicators such as skin color, clothing and accent.

They worry Hispanic crime victims will be too scared to call for help, or eyewitnesses will refuse to cooperate in murder investigations.

Supporters say there are plenty of indicators other than race that suggest someone is an illegal immigrant, including a lack of identification and conflicting statements. They say police have plenty of experience enforcing laws without relying on physical characteristics.

If officers are empowered to decide when it’s appropriate to arrest or even to kill someone, they should be trusted not to profile based on race, said Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu, a supporter whose jurisdiction includes busy human and drug smuggling routes into Phoenix.

“We will do it without profiling,” he said. “And any police chief or any sheriff in Arizona will not tolerate profiling based on race or national origin. That’s unacceptable.”

Gov. Jan Brewer insists racial profiling will not be tolerated. When she signed the bill, Brewer ordered the state’s police training and licensing board to develop standards for enforcement that avoid profiling.

The board will meet Wednesday to adopt a framework for the training program, which director Lyle Mann said would include digital instruction materials for all of Arizona’s 15,000 police officers.

Designing a training courses that prevents officers from using “the shortcut of race” will be difficult, said Jack McDevitt, associate dean of criminal justice at Northeastern University who studies racial profiling.

“No training you give police officers is going to change all of the officer’s behavior,” McDevitt said. “Unfortunately, the shortcut will be: ‘What does this person look like? What kind of accent does he have? And what kind of car is he driving?’”

AFP/File