Friday, December 4, 2009

TUCSON REGION COURT REFUSES TO BLOCK "IMMIGRANT SNITCHING" LAW

LA RECONQUISTA DE AZTLAN VANGUARD
E.F Mohammed  Martinez
AN AZTLAN FREEDOM FIGHTER’S ANSWER TO XENOPHOBE RACIST AMERIKKKA, ...AND INTERNET CENSORSHIP!
(Click On Picture)

I HOPE YOU HAD A NICE THANKSGIVING!


Photobucket

The following published story has led me to believe that Arizona's "Immigrant Reporting Law" aka "The Immigrant Snitch Law" is a parallel "law" that existed as a decree during Adolf Hitler's reign of terror from 1933-45, against the German Jewish citizens and Undocumented Jewish Immigrants alike.

During Hitler's epoch of anti Jewish hysteria, ALL German non-Jews were required by law to report on their "unpatriotic" fellow citizens, ...especially Jews per se. Many Jews were rounded up at their places of work and businesses, then beaten and deported by the Brown Shirt goon squads, Hitler's thugs. ...Those were the lucky ones as World War II became a global reality.

Does this sort of sounds familiar as Arizona's Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his Brown Shirt "deputies" are also emulating Hitler's Gestapo goon tactics against OUR own Undocumented Raza in Maricopa County, hmmmmmm....?! YOU readers draw your own conclusions.

I want to hear your opinion.

E.F. Mohammed Martinez - A Chicano Freedom Fighter

"IF IT'S A GOOD FIGHT, ...I WANT TO BE IN IT!"

"AMERICA PATRIOTISM IS THE HOME OF ALL RACIST XENOPHOBE COWARDS!"

"OUT OF SHEER DESPERATION, ...OUR ENEMIES REACT TO SURVIVE AS A DYING SPECIES ONLY WHEN THEY ARE LOSING THE RACE WAR!"
E.F. Mohammed Martinez

________________________________________________

Thursday, December 3, 2009

(This smells how Sheriff Joe Arpaio is another modern day Adolf Hitler in the making in America as he aspires for higher office,)
from Hayworth GOP voters polled favor Arpaio for governor

Tucson Region

Court refuses to block 'immigrant-reporting' law

By Howard Fischer
Capitol Media Services
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 12.03.2009
Quantcast
PHOENIX — The Arizona Supreme Court refused late Wednesday to block enactment of a new state law that requires public employees to report illegal immigrants.
Without ruling on the merits of the law, the justices said that the League of Arizona Cities and Towns, which had asked that the law be struck down as illegal, had not shown that the issue merited being taken directly to the state's high court.
Ken Strobeck, executive director of the league, said he was "shocked and disappointed"' that the justices did not see fit to weigh in on the question, at least at this point. He said no decision has been made whether to try again, this time by filing the case in Maricopa County Superior Court.
Strobeck said cities are concerned about several provisions of the law, part of a package approved by lawmakers in August to help balance the budget.
He specifically cited sections on illegal immigration that spell out what documents applicants for various public services must provide to prove they are in this country legally.
It also says that any public employee who fails to report discovered violations of federal immigration law is guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor. That carries a potential of four months in jail and a $750 fine.
That same penalty would apply to the worker's supervisor if he or she knew of the failure to report the illegal immigrant and did not direct the worker to file the report.
And the law allows state resident who believes the law has been broken to file suit.
Strobeck said cities are concerned about the liability of their workers and the potential to become embroiled in lawsuits.
But in challenging the law, the cities dealt not with the merits of the law but the way it was enacted.
Specifically, the lawsuit points out that the August special session was called to deal with budget issues. And the measure in which the illegal immigration language was included deals with changes in policy related to state spending.
That, the league's lawsuit claims, makes the provisions about illegal immigration unconstitutional because they have nothing to do with the budget. Strobeck said cities have no interest in providing services to illegal immigrants.
The lawsuit also uses the same arguments to void other nonbudget provisions in the same bill, including one that retroactively freezes any increase in "impact fees"' that cities can charge developers.
House Speaker Kirk Adams, R-Mesa, has defended the changes, saying that they relate to money the government spends on providing services. Lawmakers also have argued that the freeze on impact fees is legal, saying the move could help stimulate the home-building industry, which affects total state revenues.
Those arguments now will have to be presented to a trial court judge — if the league decides to pursue the case. Strobeck acknowledged that it could be years before the case gets through a trial, goes to the court of appeals and eventually winds up back before the state Supreme Court.

SOURCE:
American Patrol Report © -- Citizenship - Sovereignty - Law

No comments:

Post a Comment