Saturday, and not a moment too soon.

Bob Herbert:

The treatment of workers by American corporations has been worse — far more treacherous — than most of the population realizes. There was no need for so many men and women to be forced out of their jobs in the downturn known as the great recession.

More discussion in bobswern's rec diary.

Charles Blow:

After the N.A.A.C.P. asked the Tea Party "to condemn extremist elements" within its ranks, the right went on a witch hunt for black racists in the N.A.A.C.P. Not finding any, it created one. Andrew Breitbart presents: "The Sherrod Charade."

Journalism is being tarred with the sins of some on JournoList, a now defunct listserv through which a handful of people wrote heretical things like the possibility of calling conservatives racist to divert attention from Obama’s connection to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr.

This was hardly a vast left-wing conspiracy, but it fed the right’s defensive narrative that the word "racism" has become a weapon — not the shot of a rifle carefully aimed at a clear target, but a shotgun blast sprayed wide and loose at all things anti-Obama.

There’s also the charge that the president is protecting the New Black Panthers from voter intimidation charges. This nonstory has been knocked down more times than a blind boxer, but the right keeps pushing it.

Gail Collins speaking up for the vertically challenged:

"These couches were made for these little people," he complained mildly.

I cannot tell you how happy this moment made me. During the presidential campaign, whenever Obama was sharing a stage with Hillary Clinton, the seating arrangement always seemed to involve high stools. He draped his tall, lanky frame over his stool gracefully. Clinton, who would have looked like a middle-aged schoolgirl doing detention if she perched up there, opted to stand and be uncomfortable.

On behalf of all the short women of America I say — go for it, women of "The View." I’m sure you did not want to cause the president of the United States any distress, but he was so totally due.

Ruben Navarrette Jr.:

But like the saying goes, common sense isn't always common -- even in Texas. State Rep. Leo Berman, a Republican, is drafting an Arizona-style bill for Texas and plans to introduce it next session.

Adding fuel to the bonfire, Texas Republicans recently adopted an over-the-top platform at their state convention that, among other things, encouraged the Legislature to create a Class A misdemeanor criminal offense "for an illegal alien to intentionally or knowingly be within the state of Texas," and to "oppose amnesty in any form leading to citizenship." Texas Republicans also want to deny citizenship to the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants, ban day-labor work centers, limit bilingual education to three years, and deny non-U.S. citizens access to state or federal financial assistance for college.

In Texas, Latinos are forecast to make up nearly 80 percent of the population growth over the next 30 years (compared with only 4 percent for whites), and Latinos could outnumber whites by 2015, the San Antonio Express-News reported last month. What the Texas GOP drafted was a pact with the devil.

All of which leads me to ask my friends in the Lone Star State the same question my mom used to ask me growing up: "If all the other kids jumped off a cliff, would you do the same?"

Apparently they would.  

Dana Milbank:

It's not fair to blame Beck for violence committed by people who watch his show. Yet Williams isn't the only such character with a seeming affinity for the Fox News host. In April 2009, a man allegedly armed with an AK-47, a .22-caliber rifle and a handgun was charged with killing three cops in Pittsburgh. The Anti-Defamation League reported that the accused killer had, as part of a pattern of activities involving far-right conspiracy theories, posted a link on a neo-Nazi Web site to a video of Beck talking about the possibility that the Federal Emergency Management Agency was operating concentration camps in Wyoming. The killings came after Beck told Fox viewers that he "can't debunk" the notion that FEMA was operating such camps -- but before he finally acknowledged that the conspiracy wasn't real.

The Villagers finally speak up.

Mark Zandi (McCain's econ advisor):

The Bush tax cuts should be extended permanently for families with annual incomes of less than $250,000 and should be phased out slowly for those making more than that.

Others commenting include Alan S. Blinder, Diane Lim Rogers, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Leonard S. Burman and Robert Greenstein

Tonight's Rescue Rangers are vcmvo2, Louisiana 1976, HoosierDeb, YatPundit, and rexymeteroite, with sunspark says doing double duty diving for pearls among today's diaries and running the edit machine.

It's July 30. On this day in 1956, the phrase "In God we trust" was adopted as the official motto of the United States. 54 years later, aided undoubtedly by the Texas Board of Education, the Tea Party is convinced that it is a part of the Constitution.

Here are the hidden gems uncovered by the intrepid explorers of the DR:

In the Oil and the Environment category:

• While the Oilpocalypse has brought new concern about possible threats against nature, RLMiller informs us about the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline: A Failure of Environmental Security. (Louisiana 1976)
• paradox looks to a future without oil (which might by itself be a paradox) and finds himself Yearning for the Electron Dream. (sunspark says)

In the Those Wacky Right Wingers category:

• Avenging Angel takes a well-documented, frightening look at the 50 million Evangelicals in this country and their leaders in It Was the Best of Times, It Was the End of Times. (sunspark says)
• Mokurai identifies and untangles some of the ties that bind in Translating Code: Libertarian. (HoosierDeb)
• JDWolverton recognizes that, to save the failing economy, we must do much more than merely start Tweaking the Expiring Tax Cuts. (rexymeteorite)

In the Concerning Your Health category:

• DavidW offers A word of caution on your hearing and alerts us to a common, often permanent, cause of hearing loss. (HoosierDeb)
• It's unusual to rescue a link without the diary in which it is attached, but I think even the diarist would not care in this case, as his entire goal was simply to point you to what he called "The Most Important Health Care Info You May Ever Read."(HoosierDeb/sunspark says)

And finally, some Miscellany About Race:

• Ojibwa discusses "the most comprehensive study of Indian reservations ever done" in Indians 101: The Meriam Report. (YatPundit)
• LiberalTexan explains the reasons Why Justice is Not Color Blind, and discusses racial disparities in the justice system. (rexymeteorite)

jotter has today's High Impact Diaries: July 29, 2010.

asimbagirl has Top Comments: Chocolate Decadence Cupcakes Edition.

Don't hesitate even for a microsecond to promote your favorite diaries (even your own) in the Open Thread. That's what Open Threads are for. (At least this one.) Besides, it's the last Friday of the month. What else do you have to do?

From Mark Twain:

'In God We Trust.' It is the choicest compliment that has ever been paid us, and the most gratifying to our feelings. It is simple, direct, gracefully phrased; it always sounds well -- 'In God We Trust.' I don´t believe it would sound any better if it were true.

I think we all knew that the growing call for filibuster reform was going to meet with some resistance eventually.

Well, here it is:

Senior Democrats say Reid will not have the votes to change the rule at the beginning of next year.

“It won’t happen,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who said she would “probably not” support an effort to lower the number of votes needed to cut off filibusters from 60 to 55 or lower.

Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) echoed Feinstein: “I think we should retain the same policies that we have instead of lowering it.

“I think it has been working,” he said.

Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) said he recognizes his colleagues are frustrated over the failure to pass measures such as the Disclose Act, campaign legislation that fell three votes short of overcoming a Republican filibuster Tuesday.

“I think as torturous as this place can be, the cloture rule and the filibuster is important to protect the rights of the minority,” he said. “My inclination is no.”

Sen. Jon Tester, a freshman Democrat from Montana, disagrees with some of his classmates from more liberal states.

“I think the bigger problem is getting people to work together,” he said. “It’s been 60 for a long, long time. I think we need to look to ourselves more than changing the rules.”

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), who is up for reelection in 2012, also said he would like the votes needed for cloture to remain the same.

“I’m not one who think it needs to be changed,” he said.

There are plenty of reasons to believe it's still possible to get these Senators on the same page with reformers, but I won't go into them all just yet. We've got to give them some time and talk things out with them first.

But there is one thing I'd like to address directly right now, and that's the statement from Jon Tester, who said that he thought the real problem was "getting people to work together."

Well, who couldn't agree to that? Right? But here's where I'm going to guess that Sen. Tester and I differ in our approach. For him, the emphasis is probably on "together," whereas for me, the emphasis is on "work." Because the Senate isn't "working," but they're "together" whether they like it or not.

The Senate's not working, because there are something like 400 bills that have been passed by the House during the 111th Congress that the Senate has failed to consider. The Senate's not working, because there are dozens and dozens of executive nominations gathering dust. But most of all, the Senate's not working because it doesn't take any work to stop it from working. And that's what the Republicans are interested in doing. Worse, current rules make stopping the Senate from doing its work the easiest thing in the world to do.

That's just plain wrong, and I'll bet anything Senator Tester would agree with that. I'm guessing that's true because Senator Tester seems like the kind of guy who prides himself on his hard work, whether it's on the farm or in the Senate.

And he strikes me as a fair guy, too. So I know he'll understand when I say that if you want to allow for extended debate to let the minority be heard, that's fine.

But it's not free.

You should have to work -- and work hard -- to be able to stop an important bill. You should have to work yourself half to death to be able to derail an entire legislative agenda. And quite frankly, you shouldn't count on ever seeing the light of day again if you're looking to bottle up the entire agenda of the biggest Senate majority elected in decades. It should be that hard to do.

But it's not. Most times, you don't even have to lift a finger. And you know Jon Tester can't really be OK with that.

The filibuster is no longer a measure of the courage and dedication of a single Senator, fighting against all odds to demand that his voice be heard. Today's filibuster is the coordinated act of an entire party caucus, and it's hardly ever aimed at getting additional debate time, but rather at stifling debate and preventing Senators from doing the job we sent them to Washington (and paid them with your tax dollars) to do. And that's to vote. To make the tough calls and the hard decisions on public policy, and choose a direction for America. They're not doing it though. And they're not doing it because the filibuster makes it impossible for them to do it. (But that's not stopping their paychecks, in case you were wondering!)

Stopping an entire legislative agenda -- or even just demanding a little bit of extra time to debate and consider an important decision -- ought to take real, honest, hard work. And that should mean being on the floor to participate in that debate you demanded. How can anybody "work together" if one side doesn't even have to show up?

That's the current state of the filibuster. The minority need only show up once in a while to vote "no" on whether or not to end debate, but they don't have to show up more than one at a time to actually participate in that debate. Just talk about nothing, one at a time, and then pass it on to a colleague when you feel like heading out for a drink. And once in a while, call in your buddies to show up to say "no."

That's not work.

But the majority does have to do the hard work. They're the ones who prepare measures for floor consideration. Who shepherd it through committee. Who gather support for it among colleagues and interest groups and constituents. Where's the "work" from the minority? All they do in this "working together" business is show up and say "no."

Well, I imagine that even Senator Tester would like to see that change. Only there's no way to change it without opening up to the possibility of changing Senate rules, because so long as there's no way to make Senators do their work, he can wish all day long that his Republican colleagues would "work together" with him and it won't make a damn bit of difference. Maybe he has been wishing, but I certainly haven't seen it happening. Have you? It must not be working real well. And I've got to believe that the reason it's not working real well is that the rules make it so that you have more power when you refuse to work than you do when you agree to pitch in.

That's got to change. And if Jon Tester doesn't think so, I'd love to hear him tell me why.

This should fix all the problems on Wall Street:

The New York company is telling employees that they will no longer be able to get away with profanity in electronic messages. That means all 34,000 traders, investment bankers and other Goldman employees must restrain themselves from using a vast vocabulary of oft-used dirty words on Wall Street, including the six-letter expletive that came back to haunt the company at a Senate hearing in April.

...

Goldman's employee emails have been a touchy subject ever since the Securities and Exchange Commission accused the firm in April of cheating clients by selling mortgage securities that were secretly designed by a hedge-fund firm to cash in on the housing market's collapse.

This month, Goldman agreed to pay $550 million to settle the civil charges, without admitting or denying the allegations.

So it's not that Goldman Sachs employees will stop pushing "shitty deals." They just won't be allowed to describe them that way anymore.

Though Elena Kagan's confirmation to the Supreme Court hasn't really been in question, the support of five Republicans means that there's no jeopardy in next week's vote.

Retiring Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H. announced Friday that he will vote to confirm Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, making him the fifth Republican to indicate support for Obama's pick for the job....

Gregg was one of four Republicans who voted both for Kagan’s confirmation as Solicitor General and for Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor. The other three – Sens. Collins, Lugar, and Snowe – have also said they will vote for Kagan.

Lindsey Graham is the other. Ben Nelson, however, won't. At least that's what CNN's Senior Political Editor Mark Preston tweets:

Neb. Sen. Ben Nelson will vote against Kagan, but will vote with Dems. to help break a filibuster if needed.

That's confirmed in this statement from Nelson's office, based on "concerns" (unspecified) he's heard from Nebraskans. I'm sure Nebraska has been burning up Nelson's phone lines with calls about Kagan.

Nice of him to at least decide he could break this filibuster, particularly now that he knows he won't need to. All of which goes to show that in one area, the Supreme Court,the ultimate vote will generally be along party lines but with enough Republicans who believe that the President's should be shown deferrence in his choice to confirm. Hopefully that will lead Obama, if he is faced with another appointment in his next six years, to nominate a demonstrated liberal to the court.

MAL Contends: U.S. Army Clears War of Wrongdoing

Obsidian Wings: WTF? ANTI-Defamation League? Really? Really?

Left in the West:Tester, Baucus obstruct Senate reform

The Center for Public Integrity: Five of the nation?s largest health insurers are in serious discussions about creating a new nonprofit group and bankrolling it to the tune of about $20 million to influence tight congressional races and boost the image of their industry. Wonder who they'll support?

OurFuture: Where are the prosecutions? SEC lets Citi execs go free after $ 40 billion subprime lie

Danger Room: U.S ducks as cluster bomb ban takes effect

Gladys from Austin, TX is hilarious. Especially at about the four-minute mark.

Open thread below.

The longer I was on the road as a touring sideman, the more I began to understand what Pavement were talking about in this song off of 1994's Crooked Rain Crooked Rain. I don't think Billy Corgan was too happy when he heard this though.

Help us push back against TIME Magazine’s distortion of women’s issues in Afghanistan. Tomorrow, TIME Magazine will treat newsstand customers everywhere to one of the most rank propaganda plays of the Afghanistan War. The cover features a woman, Aisha, whose face was mutilated by the Taliban, next to the headline, "What Happens If We Leave Afghanistan." [...]

For all of its "Matrix"-like convolutions and "Alice in Wonderland" allusions, the new film "Inception" adds something significant to the ancient ruminations about reality's authenticity -- something profoundly relevant to this epoch of confusion. In the movie's tale of corporate espionage, we are asked to ponder this moment's most disturbing epistemological questions: Namely, how are ideas deposited in people's minds, and how incurable are those ideas when they are wrong?

Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson, America's Most Annoying Senator, will vote against Elena Kagan, because -- well, the "reason" he gives is completely unimportant, because he is just voting against her to prove that he is not a socialist, like the president.

For the low, low price of $35 a year, you can trade in your tired old "free" Gmail or Yahoo or Hotmail e-mail address for the privilege of enriching the man Ronald Reagan and his hated first wife adopted in 1945 and promptly forgot about. That's right: Michael Reagan is selling "@reagan.com" e-mail addresses. Offer ends tomorrow!

Surprising no one, the FBI announced today it had tracked the left-wing historian Howard Zinn for 25 years, despite having apparently no evidence that he ever committed a crime.

[UPDATED]Oh boy, here we go again: Anthony Weiner put on a show on the House floor last night, the clip went viral, and now left-leaning blogs are singing his praises.

By Leigh Coleman

Editor's Note: Scientific American's George Musser will be chronicling his experiences installing solar panels in Solar at Home (formerly 60-Second Solar). Read his introduction here and see all posts here .

Solar homeowners' favorite topic of conversation is the performance of their arrays. As part of the sales pitch, the installer estimates how much power you'll generate, and most systems come with a meter (separate from the utility meter) to monitor the power output continuously. But how can you tell whether your array is really living up to expectations? That simple question set me off onto a mathematical hunt that other solar homeowners might enjoy -- and which would make a good term-paper project for a high-school science class.

By Anna Petherick

Occasionally, researchers stumble across something extraordinary in a system that has been studied for decades.

Ryan Kerney of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, did just that while looking closely at a clutch of emerald-green balls -- embryos of the spotted salamander (Ambystoma maculatum). [More]

Just six months ago residents of the eastern U.S. were shoveling themselves out of the snowiest winter ever--weather that prompted mockery of global warming among some people . Now, scientists have a new explanation for why such anomalous snowstorms can coexist with global warming: The storms were kicked up by the convergence of two natural, large-scale weather patterns.

In order to better understand possible triggers of last year's media-dubbed " snowmaggedon ," a team of scientists from Columbia University's Lamont–Doherty Earth Observatory analyzed more than 50 years of snow data as well as measurements of atmospheric pressure and sea-surface temperatures. They found that a combination of El Niño (periodic sea-surface warming in the tropical Pacific Ocean) with an unusual period of decreased variability in atmospheric pressure across the North Atlantic (known as the North Atlantic oscillation , or NAO) frequently results in a pile-up of snow in the mid-Atlantic region.

When a magnitude 8.8 earthquake struck Chile on February 27, residents and seismologists knew it was a big one. But a new analysis reaffirms just how massive it was. [More]

Group Releases 18-Month Review Of President's National Security Policies And Civil Liberties

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

NEW YORK – The Obama administration has repudiated some of the Bush administration's most egregious national security policies but is in danger of institutionalizing others permanently into law, thereby creating a troubling "new normal," according to a new report released today by the American Civil Liberties Union.

"Establishing a New Normal: National Security, Civil Liberties, and Human Rights Under the Obama Administration," an 18-month review of the Obama administration's record on national security issues affecting civil liberties, concludes that the current administration's record on issues of national security and civil liberties is decidedly mixed: President Obama has made great strides in some areas, such as his auspicious first steps to categorically prohibit torture, outlaw the CIA's use of secret overseas detention sites and release the Bush administration's torture memos, but he has failed to eliminate some of the worst policies put in place by President Bush, such as military commissions and indefinite detention. He has also expanded the Bush administration's "targeted killing" program.

The 22-page report, which was researched and written by staff in the ACLU's National Security Project and Washington Legislative Office, reviews the administration's record in the areas of transparency, torture and accountability, detention, targeted killing, military commissions, speech and surveillance and watchlists.

"President Obama began his presidency with a bang, signing executive orders that placed the power of the presidency behind the restoration of the rule of law and gave meaning to the president's stated view that America must lead with its values," said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. "Unfortunately, since that time, the administration has displayed a decidedly mixed record resulting, on a range of issues, in the very real danger that the Obama administration will institutionalize some of the most troublesome policies of the previous administration – in essence, creating a troubling 'new normal.' We strongly urge the president to shift course and renew his commitment to the fundamental values that are the very foundation of our nation's strength and security."

According to the ACLU's report, the first 18 months of Obama's presidency have been marked by a pattern wherein significant achievements for civil liberties have often been followed by setbacks. For instance, the positive step of releasing Justice Department memoranda that purported to authorize the Bush administration's torture regime was followed by the troubling decision to fight the release of photos depicting the abuse of prisoners in CIA custody. The administration's commitment to dismantle Guantánamo has been undermined by its assertion of the authority to detain people indefinitely without charge or trial. And prohibitions against torture have been weakened by the failure to hold top Bush administration officials accountable for their role in the torture program.

"The Obama administration should work with Congress to restore the rule of law, and discourage any legislation that would institutionalize policies that were widely regarded as unlawful under President Bush. Together, Congress and the White House should make sure that abuses of power like the Patriot Act are dismantled, not extended, and that policies like indefinite detention are never signed into law," said Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "It is not too late for President Obama to build a legacy of justice and fairness."

The report concludes that, in addition to the initial executive orders, the administration has taken other positive steps and made genuine progress in some areas such as improvements to the government's handling of Freedom of Information Act requests, the release of key documents related to the U.S. torture program and an executive order disavowing torture. It also addresses more troubling practices such as the use of the "state secrets" doctrine to block lawsuits brought by torture survivors, the revival of the discredited military commissions to prosecute some Guantánamo detainees, the assertion of broad surveillance powers and the authorization of a "targeted killing" program to kill terrorism suspects, including American citizens, wherever they are located, without due process.

"In its first days, the Obama administration took some important steps to restore civil liberties and the rule of law," said Jameel Jaffer, Deputy Legal Director of the ACLU. "It has not, however, abandoned the 'global war' framework that was the basis for many of the last administration's counterterrorism programs. Indeed, some of the Obama administration's policies – like the policies on indefinite detention, military commissions and targeted killings – are entrenching this framework, presenting a profound threat to human rights and the rule of law. We urge the Obama administration to recommit itself to the ideals it articulated in its very first days. President Obama should not make 'global war' the new normal."

"Establishing a New Normal" is available online at: www.aclu.org/national-security/establishing-new-normal

Para su difusión inmediata
CONTACTO: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

PHOENIX – Al prohibir ayer disposiciones clave de la ley de caracterización racial de Arizona, que entró en vigor el 29 de Julio, mientras se emite un fallo determinante respecto a su constitucionalidad, una juez del tribunal federal en Phoenix garantizó que los cuerpos policiacos de Arizona no se vean obligados a exigir "documentos" de las personas a quienes intercepten y quienes sospechen se encuentran en el país de manera ilegal. El fallo se produjo en una demanda entablada por el Departamento de Justicia de los Estados Unidos impugnando la ley de Arizona. Dicho fallo reivindica reclamos semejantes hechos por la Unión Americana de Libertades Civiles y una coalición de grupos de derechos civiles, mediante una demanda distinta que impugna esta ley discriminatoria.

Los artículos de la ley que se suspenden incluyen las siguientes disposiciones:

• El requisito que los oficiales de la policía investiguen la condición migratoria de todos los individuos a quienes detengan si los oficiales sospechan que se encuentran en el país de manera ilegal;
• La reclusión obligatoria de individuos que sean arrestados, incluso por infracciones menores que normalmente resultarían en una multa, si no pueden verificar que tienen permiso para estar en los Estados Unidos;
• La nueva disposición que impone sanciones estatales de tipo penal contra individuos que no sean ciudadanos y no se registren ante el Departamento de Protección a la Patria, o Homeland Security, o que no lleven consigo los documentos de su registro;
• La disposición para el arresto sin necesidad de que medie una orden, de individuos quienes los oficiales de la ley, ya sea estatales o locales, sospechen que se les puede deportar; y
• La nueva disposición estatal que califica como delito el hecho que los inmigrantes indocumentados trabajen.

La juez suspendió la disposición que habría creado una prohibición estatal contra la posibilidad de que las personas indocumentadas soliciten o desempeñen cualquier trabajo. Sin embargo, la juez no suspendió la disposición que prohíbe que se contrate a jornaleros si el hecho de contratarlos obstaculiza el tránsito de vehículos. La coalición de derechos civiles sostiene que dichos artículos de la ley violan las garantías al derecho de expresión y confían que en última instancia dichos artículos también se prohibirán por ser anticonstitucionales, de acuerdo a la Primera Enmienda de la Constitución.

La coalición de derechos civiles que también impugnó la ley incluye a la ACLU, MALDEF, el Centro Nacional de Derecho Migratorio (National Immigration Law Center, o NILC, por sus siglas en inglés), el Asian Pacific American Legal Center (APALC, por sus siglas en inglés) -un integrante del Asian American Center for Advancing Justice- la ACLU de Arizona, la National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON, por sus siglas en inglés) y la Nacional Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP, por sus siglas en inglés). El despacho jurídico Munger, Tolles y Olson LLP también actúa como abogado adjunto en este caso.

La demanda de la coalición, archivada el 17 de mayo y para la cual se presentaron alegatos el mismo día en que la causa del gobiDepartamento de Justicia, impugna la SB 1070 por motivos jurídicos que también se plantean en la demanda del Departamento de Justicia, así como por otros motivos jurídicos, incluyendo que la ley fomenta la caracterización racial contra las personas de color, viola la Primera Enmienda e interfiere con las leyes federales. Según la coalición, la ley haría que una enorme cantidad de personas, tanto ciudadanos como no ciudadanos, a la caracterización racial, a las investigaciones indebidas y al encarcelamiento. Las siguientes citas se pueden atribuir a miembros de la coalición, quienes se nombran a continuación.

Anthony D. Romero, Director Ejecutivo de la ACLU:

"Este es un paso importante que ayudará a proteger a los residentes de Arizona contra la caracterización racial y la discriminación racial, y el gobierno de Obama merece elogios por su decisión escrupulosa de impugnar esta ley a pesar de las presiones para que se quedara callado. No se puede permitir que la frustración de un solo estado ante las políticas del gobierno federal vaya a chantajear a la autoridad federal ni dictar las prioridades del gobierno federal al grado de impedir que se haga cumplir debidamente la ley, se amenacen los derechos tanto de las personas que son ciudadanas como de aquellas que no lo son, y se violenten los principios fundamentales de los estadounidenses."

Nina Perales, Abogada de MALDEF para la Región Sudoeste:

"El fallo del día de hoy subvierte el esquema migratorio anticonstitucional que Arizona quería imponer. El fallo de la juez demuestra además que la Ley SB 1070 es un intento anticonstitucional por parte del estado de adueñarse del sistema federal al interior de las fronteras de Arizona. Los estados de todo el país deben darse cuenta que cualquier intento parecido no tendrá éxito."

Linton Joaquín, Abogado General de NILC:

"Con el fallo de hoy, la Juez Bolton otorgó un amparo contra las disposiciones más atroces de la Ley SB 1070, una promulgación peligrosa que amenaza los derechos fundamentales de un sin número de residentes de Arizona y visitantes al mismo. Otros estados que sigan las pautas erróneas de Arizona deben considerarse bajo advertencia: no se puede permitir ningún intento de atropellar los derechos constitucionales de las comunidades de color en este país. Estamos ansiosos de demostrar, mediante nuestra demanda, que esta ley tan dañina deben eliminarse de manera permanente del régimen jurídico de Arizona."

Alessandra Soler Meetze, Directora Ejecutiva de la ACLU de Arizona: 

"Este es un primer paso hacia la victoria para las libertades civiles en Arizona. Estamos ansiosos de demostrarle a la juez que esta ley reaccionaria de caracterización racial quebranta la Constitución, para que podamos comenzar el verdadero trabajo de elaborar soluciones prácticas que respondan a las inquietudes que tiene el país respecto a la inmigración, en lugar de violentar los valores fundamentales de los estadounidenses."

Julie Su, Directora de Litigios de APALC:

"Elogiamos a la juez por haber visto lo peligroso que habría sido que se promulgara esta ley. La SB 1070 presenta un esquema inmigratorio distinto y separado que contradice las leyes y políticas federales, y tendría un efecto devastador en los asiático-americanos, las personas provenientes de las islas de Pacífico, los latinos y otras personas de color en Arizona. De hecho, ya se han comenzado a sentir esos efectos negativos. Este fallo deja claro que intimidar a las comunidades de inmigrantes, el pedir que las personas se detengan con el pretexto de pedirles "documentos" y los pronunciamientos acerca de quiénes son los que tienen derecho a estar en Arizona y quiénes no, so pretexto de hacer cumplir la SB 1070, deben cesar de inmediato."

Pablo Alvarado, Director of NDLON:

"Si la historia nos sirve de referencia, el camino que nos queda por delante en Arizona, es muy largo. El día de hoy fue una parada en el camino, y aunque confiamos plenamente en el proceso judicial para que en última instancia se defienda la Constitución de los Estados Unidos, no debemos cantar victoria hasta que se le ponga el alto a la SB 1070 por completo, y hasta que los derechos civiles de todos los habitantes de Arizona queden completamente protegidos."

La organizaciones y abogados del caso, Friendly House et al. v. Whiting et al., incluyen:

• Proyecto de los Derechos de los Inmigrantes de la ACLU: Lucas Guttentag, Omar Jadwat, Cecillia Wang, Tanaz Moghadam y Harini P. Raghupathi;
• MALDEF: Perales, Thomas A. Saenz, Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon, Victor Viramontes, Gladys Limón, Nicholás Espiritu e Ivan Espinoza-Madrigal;
• NILC: Joaquin, Karen Tumlin, Nora A. Preciado, Melissa S. Keaney, Vivek Mittal y Ghazal Tajmiri;
• Fundación ACLU de Arizona: Dan Pochoda y Annie Lai;
• APALC: Su, Ronald Lee, Yungsuhn Park, Connie Choi y Carmina Ocampo;
• NDLON: Chris Newman;
• NAACP: Laura Blackburne;
• Munger Tolles & Olson LLP: Bradley S. Phillips, Paul J. Watford, Joseph J. Ybarra, Susan T. Boyd, Yuval Miller, Elisabeth J. Neubauer y Benjamin Maro;
• Roush, McCracken, Guerrero, Miller & Ortega: Daniel R. Ortega, Jr.

La petición para un interdicto preliminar se pueden consultar en: www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights-racial-justice/friendly-house-et-al-v-whiting-et-al-plaintiffs-motion-preliminary-

Puede ver un video nuevo de la ACLU acerca de cómo la SB 1070 fomenta la caracterización racial en: www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights-racial-justice/would-you-ask-man-his-papers

Para mayores datos acerca de la ley de Arizona, vaya a: www.aclu.org/what-happens-arizona-stops-arizona

UPDATED

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

PHOENIX – Ensuring that Arizona law enforcement will not be required to demand "papers" from people they stop who they suspect are "unlawfully present" in the U.S., a federal court in Phoenix today blocked key provisions of Arizona's racial profiling law, scheduled to go into effect on July 29, pending a final court ruling on its constitutionality. The ruling came in a lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice challenging the Arizona law. The ruling vindicates similar claims made by the American Civil Liberties Union and a coalition of civil rights groups in a separate lawsuit challenging the discriminatory measure.

The blocked sections under the law include the following provisions:

•    The requirement that police officers investigate the immigration status of all individuals they stop if the officers suspect that they are in the country unlawfully;
•    The mandatory detention of individuals who are arrested, even for minor offenses that would normally result in a ticket, if they cannot verify that they are authorized to be in the U.S.;
•    The new statute imposing state criminal penalties for non-citizens failing to register with the Department of Homeland Security or failing to carry registration documents;
•    The provision for warrantless arrest of individuals who are deemed by state or local police officers to be "removable" from the U.S.; and
•    The new state statute making it a crime for alleged undocumented immigrants to work.

The court blocked the provision that would create an Arizona ban on undocumented persons applying for, soliciting or performing work. However, the court did not block the provisions that prohibit day laborers from being hired if the party hiring them impedes traffic. The civil rights coalition maintains these sections violate free speech protections and are confident that they too will ultimately be barred as unconstitutional under the First Amendment.*
 
The civil rights coalition that also challenged the law includes the ACLU, MALDEF, National Immigration Law Center (NILC), Asian Pacific American Legal Center (APALC) – a member of the Asian American Center for Advancing Justice, ACLU of Arizona, National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON) and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). The law firm of Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP is acting as co-counsel in the case.

The coalition's lawsuit, filed on May 17 and argued the same day as the Justice Department's case, challenges SB 1070 on legal grounds raised in the Justice Department's lawsuit as well as others including that the law invites the racial profiling of people of color, violates the First Amendment and interferes with federal law. According to the coalition, the law would subject massive numbers of people – both citizens and non-citizens – to racial profiling, improper investigations and detention.

The following quotes can be attributed to members of the coalition, as listed below.

Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU:

"This is a major step that will help protect the residents of Arizona against racial profiling and discrimination, and the Obama administration deserves praise for its principled decision to challenge this law despite pressure to stay silent. A single state's frustration with federal policy cannot be allowed to hijack federal authority or dictate federal priorities in ways that impede effective law enforcement, threaten the rights of citizens and non-citizens alike and violate core American values."

Nina Perales, Regional Counsel Southwest Region for MALDEF:

"Today's ruling guts the unconstitutional immigration scheme that Arizona wanted to establish. The judge's decision further shows that SB 1070 is an unconstitutional attempt by the state to take over the federal immigration system within Arizona's borders. States around the nation should take heed that any similar efforts will not succeed."

Linton Joaquin, General Counsel of NILC:

"With today's ruling, Judge Bolton enjoined the most egregious provisions of SB 1070, a dangerous enactment that threatens the fundamental rights of countless Arizonans and visitors. Other states following in Arizona's misguided footsteps should consider themselves forewarned: attempts to trample on the constitutional rights of communities of color in this country must not be permitted. We look forward to showing, through our lawsuit, that this pernicious law should be taken off Arizona's books permanently."

Alessandra Soler Meetze, Executive Director of the ACLU of Arizona:

"This is a first step toward a victory for civil liberties in Arizona. We eagerly anticipate proving to the court that this reactionary racial profiling law violates the Constitution so we can begin the real work of crafting practical solutions that address our nation's immigration concerns rather than violate fundamental American values."

Julie Su, Litigation Director of APALC:

"We applaud the judge for seeing the imminent danger of having this law enacted. SB 1070 presents a distinct and separate immigration scheme that conflicts with federal law and policy, and would have a devastating impact on Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders, Latinos and other people of color in Arizona. Indeed, some of those negative effects have already been felt. This ruling makes clear that intimidation of immigrant communities, pretextual stops to ask for 'papers,' and rhetoric about who belongs in Arizona and who doesn't under the guise of enforcing SB 1070 should cease immediately."

Pablo Alvarado, Director of NDLON: 

"If history is any guide, the road ahead in Arizona will be a long one. Today was one stop along the way, and we while we have complete faith in the legal process to ultimately defend the United States Constitution, we will not declare victory until SB 1070 is stopped in its entirety and until civil rights of all people in Arizona are fully protected."

Organizations and attorneys on the case, Friendly House et al. v. Whiting et al., include:

•    ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project: Lucas Guttentag, Omar Jadwat, Cecillia Wang, Tanaz Moghadam and Harini P. Raghupathi;
•    MALDEF: Perales, Thomas A. Saenz, Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon, Victor Viramontes, Gladys Limón, Nicholás Espiritu and Ivan Espinoza-Madrigal;
•    NILC: Joaquin, Karen Tumlin, Nora A. Preciado, Melissa S. Keaney, Vivek Mittal and Ghazal Tajmiri;
•    ACLU Foundation of Arizona: Dan Pochoda and Annie Lai;
•    APALC: Su, Ronald Lee, Yungsuhn Park, Connie Choi and Carmina Ocampo;
•    NDLON: Chris Newman;
•    NAACP: Laura Blackburne;
•    Munger Tolles & Olson LLP: Bradley S. Phillips, Paul J. Watford, Joseph J. Ybarra, Susan T. Boyd, Yuval Miller, Elisabeth J. Neubauer and Benjamin Maro;
•    Roush, McCracken, Guerrero, Miller & Ortega: Daniel R. Ortega, Jr.

The motion for a preliminary injunction can be found at: www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights-racial-justice/friendly-house-et-al-v-whiting-et-al-plaintiffs-motion-preliminary-

A new ACLU video about how the SB 1070 invites racial profiling can be found at: www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights-racial-justice/would-you-ask-man-his-papers
 
More information about the Arizona law can be found at: www.aclu.org/what-happens-arizona-stops-arizona

* This paragraph was rewritten to better explain the decision.