Arizona Violence – the Untold Story

by Bob Quasius

By now everyone has heard of the tragic shootings of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and others in Tuscon, and the murder of rancher Robert Krentz. Our heartfelt hearts and prayers go out to the victims and their families.

Sadly, much of the violence in Arizona is NOT being reported by the national news media. Many immediately assumed an undocumented immigrant must have murdered Robert Krenz, though police have no suspect. Jan Brewer often claimed headless corpses were often found in the desert, until Arizona Coroners said none were found.

Brisenia Flores, 9 year-old murdered in Southern Arizona by Minutemen.
This week, jury selection begins in the capital murder trial of minutemen, including a national director of the group, for the murders of a Mexican-American family. A nine year old girl, Brisenia Flores, pleaded for her life, but was shot to death anyway. Her father Raúl was shot to death, but Brisenia’s mother was able to find a gun and fend off her attackers. There has been NO national media coverage of this atrocity.

If the murderers had been Muslims or Undocumented Immigrants killing a white family would we be hearing of this? Why is it that Minutemen patrolling the border playing the border patrol receives more media coverage than the slaughter of a Mexican-American family in their own home by gun toting Minutemen? The Minutemen consider themselves patriots, but another term comes to mind for this group…domestic terrorists!

Likewise, there has been no coverage of Rio Rico and Vekol valley shootings of undocumented immigrants who were not involved in drugs and weren’t robbed by men armed with high powered rifles in camouflage, who shoot and then ran. Sheriff Estrada thinks extremists are behind these shootings. Neo-Nazis also patrol the Vekol Valley, including J.T. Ready, an infamous Neo-Nazi leader who has well-documented ties to Arizona Senator Russell Pearce.

via Arizona Violence – the Untold Story.

Listen to the 911 call for Brisenia Flores!

CREDIT: Dennis Gilman
CAPTION: Brisenia Flores
This entry was posted on Sunday, January 16th, 2011 at 3:00 pm and is filed under Headline news, Immigration news, political news, video. Tags for this post: brisenia flores, minutemen. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Pearce’s ‘rule of law’ banter belies birthright-citizenship proposal

By Matt Bunk –

Published: December 17, 2010 at 8:23 am

I’ve heard Russell Pearce lecture on “the rule of law” for years. In public hearings, on the phone and, lately, on just about any news channel I happen to flip past.

Other than when he’s on national television, he tends to get himself all worked up and, before you know it, starts speaking very loudly/shouting about how his whole mission regarding illegal immigration is to enforce existing laws that are otherwise being ignored.

But that was the old Russell Pearce. The new Russell Pearce is on the “juice” — not juice as in steroids, juice as in power.

Likewise, the newly elected Senate president has beefed up his legislative agenda. Instead of writing laws that require the state to pick up slack for the federal government, Pearce is champing at the bit to wipe out a 150-year-old interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

For months, Pearce has been working on legislation to deny citizenship to those born in Arizona to illegal immigrant parents. Details are sketchy, but that’s the gist. Press conferences on the topic have yielded few concrete answers.

The whole thing gets pretty hazy when you start asking questions. Pearce has yet to explain, for instance, whether the legislation would apply to a baby born in, say, east Mesa to a couple that included one legal resident and one illegal immigrant.

Also, which nation will claim that baby if not the U.S.?

But Pearce doesn’t seem to be concerned about how the law would play out or the problems it could cause, as long as it drives away illegal immigrants. His strategy has always been to wage a war of attrition, and he appears to be winning, judging by the reports of an exodus of Hispanics from Arizona this year.

What’s more, another round of protest-inducing immigration legislation may allow Pearce to build a lasting national profile instead of, perhaps, slipping back into the obscurity of the Arizona Legislature after 15 minutes of fame for passing SB1070.

That sort of publicity wouldn’t hurt if Pearce decides to run for Congress after the Independent Redistricting Commission redraws the state’s congressional districts next year.

Let’s just say that if I were in Pearce’s position, I might be really psyched about the possibility that the next redistricting commission will draw up a district that includes my house and a whole bunch of conservative voters in the East Valley, much like today’s 6th Congressional District.

Fortunately for Pearce, his position as Senate president allows him to choose one member of the next commission.

The position also affords him enough power to dictate which bills will and won’t move through the Legislature when the regular session begins Jan. 10. That means he’ll have a lot of power to push his birthright-citizenship legislation.

If Pearce can avoid getting crosswise with fellow Republicans over taxes or other major economic development issues, he just might see his proposal become state law.

What would happen next, though, is both exactly what Pearce says he wants and precisely what will be his biggest obstacle: a court battle. Probably several court battles.

Pearce says he wants to take this fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is the only entity that can grant what he wants without another constitutional convention. And he believes the current slate of justices is his best bet to wipe out the interpretation of the 14th Amendment that many of us learned in elementary school.

Pearce, though, doesn’t believe being born on U.S. soil is good enough for citizenship. He says the founding fathers intended for heritage to play a role in citizenship as well as birthplace, citing long-forgotten arguments on the floor of Congress and nuances in case law.

Pearce will also argue that he’s not doing anything different than he’s always done. He views the birthright-citizenship proposal as a way to cut out a cancer that has long plagued the U.S. Constitution. He sees it as an extension of his responsibility to protect and enforce the law.

Yet this smells and tastes different than the rule-of-law fodder that Pearce has been feeding us for years. Even though I have yet to see the bill, I’m convinced that it won’t be just another SB1070. It’s going to have much bigger teeth.

And this time it’s not just Arizona. it’s going to happen in 14 different states at the same time.

— Matt Bunk is managing editor of the Arizona Capitol Times.

Birthright Citizenship Bill Released By State Legislators

Submitted by Kristian Ramos on 1/5/11
Today a coalition of State Senators for Legal Immigration Reform held a press conference to announce their plans to release legislation that would eventually deny children of immigrants birthright citizenship in the Untied States. The legislative process for this is complex and appears designed to draw federal lawsuits which would eventually lead to a Supreme court re-interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

The coalition released two documents during their press conference, a Bill and a State Compact to be passed along with the proposed legislation. Both the Bill and the Compact are attached below. Passing both of these in tandem in all 40 states is a part of what can only be called a highly circuitous way of reforming our federal immigration system.

The legislation does not actually reform anything, but rather is designed to set off a legal battle which would result in the Supreme Court reinterpreting the 14th Amendment to deny children of immigrants birthright citizenship.

According to Kris Kobach, elected Secretary of State to Kansas, the legislation and the compact are not designed so much to deny citizenship to children of immigrants immediately but to create a legal argument that the entire concept of citizenship should not be looked at solely on the basis of federal sovereignty but rather be viewed on a state by state basis.

The concept of “State Citizenship” is the mechanism by which state legislators intend to invoke state sovereignty on citizenship within the borders of their individual states. The Compact states:

(a) The Signatories to this compact shall make a distinction in the birth certificates, certificates of live birth, or other birth records issued in the signatory states, between persons in the signatory state who are born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and persons who are not born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Persons born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States shall be designated as natural-born United States citizens.

(b) Subject to the jurisdiction of the United States has the meaning that it bears in Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, namely that the person is a child of at least one parent who owes no allegiance to any foreign to any foreign sovereignty or a child without citizenship or nationality in any foreign country. For the purposes of this compact a person who owes no allegiance to any sovereignty is a United States citizen or national, or an immigrant accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the United States, or a person without citizenship or nationality in any foreign country.

According to the State Legislators For Legal Immigration, in order for this Compact to have any force of law it must be passed in at least 40 states, at which point it can be introduced in the House, then passed in the Senate, at which point it will become like a federal law.

Where things get tricky is in the actual Bill itself. The legislation of the Bill itself if passed in each state, reinterprets the 14th Amendment to not give children of immigrants automatic citizenship based on being born on American soil.

(a) For the purpose of this statute, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States has the meaning that it bears in Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States constitution, namely that the person is a child of at least one parent who owes no allegiance to any foreign sovereignty, or as a child without citizenship or nationality in any foreign country. For the purpose of this statute, a person who owes no allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is a United States citizen national, or an immigrant accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the United States, or a person without citizenship or nationality in any foreign country.

Kobach and co were adamant that this would not actually change the federally mandated definition of a citizen, nor change anything in the actual Constitution, nor would there be as of yet any mechanism for actually deporting children of immigrants based on the powers innumerated in this law.

In fact as Arizona state Senator John Kavanagh noted, all this legislation was intended to do is create lawsuits, which would at some point would (in his hopes) reach the Supreme Court and lead to a new interpretation the 14th Amendment, which would deny birthright citizenship to children of immigrants.

Erin Kelly of the Arizona Republic has the full story on this particularly perplexing and paradoxical way of legislating HERE:

“Arizona state Rep. John Kavanagh and Arizona state Sen. Ron Gould, both Republicans, said they plan to introduce legislation in the next few weeks that would define what it means to be an Arizona citizen. That definition would say that an Arizona citizen must be a U.S. citizen, who would be defined as someone who is born in the United States and has at least one parent who owes no allegiance to any foreign sovereignty. Naturalized U.S. citizens also would be considered Arizona citizens.”

Kavanagh and Gould both stressed that the bill is more for legal battles then an actual plan on what to do about immigrants born in the United States:

“Kavanagh and Gould both said they expect the Arizona Legislature to pass the bill, most likely in April. If passed, there would be no immediate affect on babies born to illegal immigrants in Arizona or their families, the lawmakers said. Rather, the bill, if it becomes law, is designed to draw a legal challenge from immigrant rights’ groups over the definition of a U.S. citizen and force the issue into the federal courts for clarification of the 14th Amendment.

“The bottom line: What we want is our day in court,” Kavanagh said. The draft bill specifically states that citizenship of a particular state shall not give the citizen any special rights, benefits, privileges, or immunities under law. Babies born to illegal immigrants in Arizona or other states that pass the legislation would not be stripped of any of the current rights or benefits they receive, the lawmakers said.”

More on this as it develops.


Please forward a copy of eLatinaVoices position on the 14th Amendment to protect the birthrights of U.S. born children to your elected officials. Your personal comments will be more powerful than you can imagine.

We will soon have new state and federal elected officials take office. Make them aware of your opinion on this issue. The following are two recent articles related to the right’s of children. Please be on the alert!

Washington D.C.

Legislators set sights on ‘anchor babies’

By Mariano Castillo, CNN
January 5, 2011 10:55 a.m. EST
State Legislators for Legal Immigration will reveal a proposal Wednesday
It will be a legislative proposal that can affect so-called “anchor babies”
It would not affect any other groups
(CNN) — A group of state legislators opposed to illegal immigration plan to propose a legislative “fix” Wednesday that would prevent children of illegal immigrants born in the United States from being citizens, a spokesman said.

The group, State Legislators for Legal Immigration, will reveal their strategy at a Wednesday morning news conference at the National Press Club in Washington, Ty McCauslin said.

The coalition counts members from 40 states. It argues that the 14th Amendment has been wrongly applied to so-called “anchor babies.”

The 14th Amendment says that “all persons born … in the United States” automatically become U.S. citizens.

2010: 14th Amendment rewards immigrants?

The group’s proposal “is to fix the misapplication of the 14th Amendment as it applies to the children of illegal aliens,” McCauslin told CNN.

The group would not divulge additional details of the proposal before it is officially announced, but said that there would be several constitutional scholars on hand to vouch for its legality.

Besides unauthorized immigrants, no other group would be affected by the proposal, the spokesman said.

14 states may target birthright citizenship

By Liz Goodwin liz Goodwin – Mon Jan 3, 3:11 pm ET
Arizona state politicians will introduce model legislation this week to encourage states to prevent children of illegal immigrants from being granted citizenship under the 14th Amendment.

Lawmakers in at least 14 states have said they are committed to passing the legislation targeting birthright citizenship. Arizona’s anti-illegal-immigrant bill, SB-1070, was also based on model legislation that could be easily copied by states, and at least seven states are likely to pass bills similar to the first Arizona immigration overhaul this year, according to one analysis by an immigrants rights group.

[Related: Immigrants push for driver’s licenses and financial aid]

Arizona state Senator Russell Pearce will unveil the bill Jan. 5 in Washington, D.C., the Arizona Capital Times reports. The paper says lawmakers in Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas and Utah have said they want to introduce similar legislation this year.

Pearce argues that the “original intent” of the 14th Amendment was to grant citizenship to freed U.S. slaves, and that it was never meant to apply to the children of foreigners. A Phoenix New Times writer, however, argues that lawmakers who originally passed the amendment took into account the cases of children of Chinese immigrants in California as well as children of gypsies when drafting the measure. A 19th-century Supreme Court precedent also backs that interpretation, though no Supreme Court case has yet dealt with the issue of offspring of illegal immigrant parents.

The amendment states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Ali Noorani of the immigrant-rights group the National Immigration Forum told The Lookout that he believes leaders in more states will try to counter the thrust of the birthright initiative by adopting resolutions that eschew state laws cracking down on illegal immigration. Religious and political leaders in Utah recently signed a compact advocating for a “humane” approach to immigration, which other states could copy.

(A 3-year-old Texan grips his father, an illegal immigrant, in San Juan: AP)

McClatchy Washington Bureau

Posted on Thu, Nov. 18, 2010

‘Birthright citizenship’ will be target of House GOP majority

last updated: November 18, 2010 07:49:01 AM

WASHINGTON — As one of its first acts, the new Congress will consider denying citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants who are born in the United States.

Those children, who are now automatically granted citizenship at birth, will be one of the first targets of the Republican-led House when it convenes in January.

GOP Rep. Steve King of Iowa, the incoming chairman of the subcommittee that oversees immigration, is expected to push a bill that would deny “birthright citizenship” to such children.

The measure, assailed by critics as unconstitutional, is an indication of how the new majority intends to flex its muscles on the volatile issue of illegal immigration.

The idea has a growing list of supporters, including Republican Reps. Tom McClintock of Elk Grove and Dan Lungren of Gold River, but it has aroused intense opposition, as well.

“I don’t like it,” said Chad Silva, statewide policy analyst for the Latino Coalition for a Healthy California. “It’s been something that’s been a part of America for a very long time. … For us, it sort of flies in the face of what America is about.”

Republicans, Silva said, are “going in there and starting to monkey with the Constitution.”

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1868, guarantees citizenship to anyone born or naturalized in the United States. It was intended to make sure that children of freed slaves were granted U.S. citizenship.

While opponents say King’s bill would clearly be unconstitutional, backers say the 14th Amendment would not apply. The amendment states that anyone born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is a citizen.

King said the amendment would not apply to the children of illegal immigrants because their parents should not be in the country anyway. He said immigration law should not create incentives for people to enter the country illegally and that it’s creating an “anchor baby industry.”

“Many of these illegal aliens are giving birth to children in the United States so that they can have uninhibited access to taxpayer-funded benefits and to citizenship for as many family members as possible,” King said.

An estimated 340,000 of the 4.3 million babies born in the United States in 2008 were the children of undocumented immigrants, according to an analysis of Census Bureau data by the Pew Hispanic Center done last year.

The issue is dividing Republicans, too.

“We find both this rhetoric and this unconstitutional conduct reprehensible, insulting and a poor reflection upon Republicans,” DeeDee Blasé, the founder of Somos Republicans, a Latino GOP organization based in the Southwestern states, said in a letter to House Republican leaders.

Silva said the Republican plan is “not the fix,” adding that the citizenship of children born to immigrants was never an issue during the immigration tide at the turn of the 20th century and that it shouldn’t be now.

“That’s our strength,” he said. “And to start splitting hairs like that will only make the immigration issue worse.”

Democratic Rep. Doris Matsui of Sacramento called King’s plan “both unconstitutional and shortsighted.”

“The 14th Amendment to the Constitution grants American citizenship to anyone born on American soil,” she said. “I firmly believe we must reform the current immigration system, but we need to do so comprehensively with policies that respect our nation’s history, strengthen our borders, and help our economy.”

McClintock outlined his position last summer in a rebuttal to a newspaper editorial: “If illegal immigration is to be rewarded with birthright citizenship, public benefits and amnesty, it becomes impossible to maintain our immigration laws and the process of assimilation that they assure,” he wrote.

McClintock noted that the United Kingdom, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, France and India have all changed their laws in recent years to require that at least one parent be a legal resident for the child to become a legal citizen.

Lungren, who served as California’s attorney general from 1990 to 1998 introduced a similar bill in 2007, but it did not pass the House, which was controlled by Democrats at the time.

His bill called for defining what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means. Lungren proposed that the clause would apply to any person born to a parent who is a citizen, a legal alien or an alien serving in the military.


Children’s rights!

Nationally, and in Arizona, some elected officials have taken to the airwaves and used their voices and political positions to paint an unfavorable picture of U.S. born Latino children. More specifically, the negative rhetoric has turned from dealing with immigrant issues to one focused on the Latino community nationwide.

Latinos are the largest ethnic group in the United States and growing. The state of Arizona ranks 5th in Hispanic population in the nation and our elected officials do not value our contribution to the economy. The Arizona Latino population is 30% of the state’s population and represents $31.3B in purchasing power. Latino owned businesses in Arizona now number 52,667 with revenues of $8B. Latino children enrolled in K-12 public schools represent 447,208 or 41.4%. Latinos and their children play a major role in the future of Arizona and in this nation.

Today, U.S. born Latino children are under attack by politicians seeking to position themselves politically on a national and local basis. The extreme rhetoric is such that Congressional hearings on the 14th Amendment to the Constitution are being discussed with the intent of taking away the citizenship of children born on American soil.

As Americans, Latinas, voters, we cannot stand by and allow elected officials or others to use children for their own political gains. Their negative voices will cause irreparable harm to innocent children who have no voice to speak on their behalf. It is for that reason, that eLatinaVoices members will raise their united voice on behalf of children. We will do whatever is necessary to protect their rights and assure their citizenship.

Fighting for our children

eLatina Voices is a vibrant group of Latina women dedicated to obtaining human rights for all citizens while pledging to speak on behalf of those who have no voice in our society. eLatina Voices embraces the inalienable rights granted to all American citizens and specifically those inherent in the 14th Amendment which guarantees American citizenship to all children born on American soil.


“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution.


When the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted in 1868, it carried with it its Equal Protection Clause, which requires Arizona to provide equal protection under the law to all within its jurisdiction. Arizona’s state of race relations today is dismal, with a state led by extremists bent on using hate and divisive tactics to meet their own ends. What was once considered an inherent right in America is currently being challenged by groups who link citizenship with ethnic background. We find ourselves at a historic moment in time when we are shamed by our state’s legacy of racism and attempts to question and to deny U.S. citizenship to children born on American soil.

eLatinaVoices sees that any attempt to deny citizenship to children born in the United States has no constitutional basis and is extremist rhetoric that will punish innocent children.

eLatinaVoices will serve as a voice for children, who represent the future of our country, and cannot speak for themselves. We will use our united voices which must never be silent not now—not ever, in matters that concern our children. We will work tirelessly to stop those who willingly prey on defenseless babies and children.

eLatinaVoices urges you to contact our state’s U.S. Members of Congress and voice your concerns. Changing the Fourteenth Amendment is detrimental to our country and to the future of our children.


A FIGHT FOR THE CHILDREN – 11 Legislators targeted

A special thanks to the Children’s Action Alliance (CAA) for their advocacy work on behalf of children. We hope to continue our collaborative work and extend CAA’s voice into the Latino community. Most recently the CAA completed a study “Who Voted for Kids and Who is Just Kidding” that identified key legislation affecting children and rated legislators on how they voted on this legislation. We identified 8 legislators who received the lowest ratings supporting children in the study. While we will look at all legislators, we will begin with those who were rated the lowest in this study. We highlighted areas of importance to give you an overview. For more information, go to the CAA website and become familiar with the study, then go to the Legislative Fact Sheet to see how your legislator voted.

We highly recommend that you write or contact your legislator to explain their votes on this legislation. They are not aligned with the voters in their districts regarding children. Let us know what they say, even if they do not respond to you. eLatinaVoices, representing our members, will also ask these legislators to explain their votes.

In the last election, voters in these districts voted in favor of First Things First, which provides funding for education, healthcare and family support. Voters also voted for a tax increase to help with funding. These factors should have guided these legislators on voting in favor of children.

The question is what happened? What influenced their unfavorable votes? Are they the best to represent the interests of children?

The following legislators received the lowest ratings on legislation impacting children.


District 5 – Senator Sylvia Allen – represents Globe, Payson, Safford, Show Low, Whiteriver and Winslow – 50,227 children in her district. 27% of children live in poverty. 26% are Latino.

District 4 – Senator Scott Bundgaard – represents Buckeye, Sun City West, Surprise and Wickenburg – 65,873 children in his district. 8% live in poverty. 23% are Latino.

District 6 – Senator Lori Klien – Anthem, New River – 55,027 children in her district. 10% live in poverty and 22% are Latino.

District 9 – Senator Rick Murphy – represents Peoria, Sun City and Youngtown – 35,214 children in his district. 11% live in poverty. 34% Latino

District 18 – Senator Russell Pearce – represents West Mesa – 49,378 children in his district. 23% live in poverty. 57% are Latino.

District 23 – Senator Steve Smith – represents Avondale, Apache Junction, Casa Grande, Eloy, Florence and Maricopa – 106,065 children in his district, 21% live in poverty. 42% are Latino.

District 24 – Senator Don Shooter – represents Fortuna, Parker, San Luis, Somerton and Yuma – 58,131 children in his district. 28% live in poverty. 76% are Latino.

District 25 – Senator Gail Griffin – represents Avra Valley, Douglas, Nogales, Rio Rico, SE Sierra Vista – 54,300 in her district are children. 28% live in poverty. 60% are Latino.

District 26 – Senator Al Melvin – represents Catalina, Flowing Wells, Oro Valley, Tortolita, Casas Adobes – 38,464 children in his district. 11% live in poverty. 33% are Latino.


District 11 – Representative Kate Brophy McGee has 32,285 children in her District. 13% live in poverty and 22% are Latino.

District 6   – Representative Amanda Reeve has 55,027 children in her District. 10% live in poverty and 22% are Latino.