Finance | Emptysuit

Posts Tagged ‘ Finance ’

Hu Jintao Jets Into Washington Animation

Obama Bows To China’s President Hu Jintao

Comment On Twitter

Click On Links:
Obama Bows To China’s President Hu Jintao
Obama Bowing To Japan’s Emperor Akihito
Obama Bowing To Saudi King
Michelle Obama Touches Queen Elizabeth
Ahmadinejad Tells Obama, Get Some Experience
Michelle Obama Chimp Image On Google
Impeach Obama
Michelle Obama Monkey Faces
Obama, Looking at woman in Italy
Is Obama Ted Williams?
Michelle Obama On Hawaii Beach For Christmas
Bush Billboard, Miss Me Yet?
About Emptysuit
Your Opinion

2011: 01/18
CATEGORY: International Events
Leave a comment

Obama’s 40 Jets, 34 Warships For Trip To India

Obama leaves for India on a ten-day tour ending in South Korea, costing us taxpayers some $200 Million dollars a day! Obama is bringing an entourage of 3,000 people with him. Obama’s trip to India does include a meeting with Prime Minister Manohan Singh in New Delhi. A total of 40 jetliners will haul Obama, family, friends and staff. They’ve rented the entire Taj Mahal Palace & Tower Hotel, all 570 rooms! He’s even bringing his teleprompters with him! He will also be protected by a fleet of 34 warships, including an aircraft carrier, which will patrol the sea lanes off the Mumbai coast during his two-day stay there beginning Saturday. The measure has been taken as Mumbai attack in 2008 took place from the sea.

2010: 11/03
CATEGORY: International Events
19 comments

Fed To Boost Economy By Buying $600B In Bonds

The Federal Reserve said it will buy $600 billion of U.S. government bonds over the next eight months to drive down interest rates and encourage more borrowing and growth. The Fed left open the possibility of doing more if growth and inflation don’t perk up in the months ahead. The $75 billion a month in new purchases of Treasury debt come on top of $35 billion a month the Fed is expected to spend to replace mortgage bonds in its portfolio that are being retired. The U.S. central bank said it would buy about $75 billion in longer-term Treasury bonds per month. It said it would regularly review the pace and size of the program and adjust it as needed depending on the path of the recovery. In its post-meeting statement, the Fed described the economy as “slow”, and said employers remained reluctant to add to payrolls. It said measures of inflation were “somewhat low.”

2010: 11/03
CATEGORY: Economy
11 comments

Zach Galifianakis Smokes Marijuana On Bill Maher’s Show

During a discussion about Proposition 19 on Bill Maher’s HBO show “Real Time” last night, Zach Galifianakis commented that the people’s opposition to marijuana legalization might be rooted in a feeling that smoking marijuana is still taboo. Read more

2010: 10/31
CATEGORY: National Issues
1 comment

Children As Weapons Of War, Okay Says Obama

International Human Rights groups and organizations are outraged and left grappling for answers. Earlier this week President Obama gave four countries a year pass, a waiver for the use of child in war; Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo (DR Congo), Sudan, and Yemen.

In one momentary, sweeping act President Obama has undercut years of work and thousands of dollars spent in effort to protect children worldwide from this very traumatizing act.

In a quid pro quo, Yemen received the waiver in exchange for helping the United States (US) in its struggle against Al Qaeda, the same for Chad. DR Congo and Sudan were given the one year waiver so that they may have more time to rid their armies of this practice while continuing to strengthen their military forces with our monetary aid.

2010: 10/31
CATEGORY: International Events
2 comments

Koran Burn At Ground Zero

Join Emptysuit On Twitter

Click On Links:
Obama’s Support Mosque At Ground Zero
Reflections On The Ground Zero Mosque
The Audacity Of Hope Page 261
Obama Admitting He Is Muslim
Glenn Beck ‘Restoring Honor Rally’
The House Negro And The Field Negro
Palin: ‘I hope that Dr. King would be so proud of us’
Michelle Obama Chimp Image On Google
Rush Limbaugh: The Obamas Party Like Royalty
The Clintons, Jews And Niggers
Michelle Obama Called Ghetto Girl
Glenn Beck ‘Restoring Honor Rally’
Michelle Obama On Beach In Spain
Michelle Obama Monkey Faces
City Councilmen Fighting
Black People Don’t Like Black Conservatives

2010: 09/11
CATEGORY: National Issues
4 comments

Hispanics Riot After LAPD Shooting

Join Emptysuit On Twitter

Click On Links:
BART Officer Smash Michael Joseph Gibson Head Into Window
Woman Has Big Mack Attack And Trash McDonalds
Michelle Obama Chimp Image On Google
Rush Limbaugh: The Obamas Party Like Royalty
Obama Admitting He Is Muslim
Michelle Obama Called Ghetto Girl
Glenn Beck ‘Restoring Honor Rally’
Riots At Copenhagen Climate Conference
Health Clinic Fight
City Councilmen Fighting
Black People Don’t Like Black Conservatives

2010: 09/07
CATEGORY: National Issues
1 comment

Egypt Uncovers Two 4,300 Year Old Tombs

Egyptian Culture Minister Farouq Hosni said Wednesday that an excavation team discovered two colorful tombs, believed to be some 4,300 years old, in Saqqara district, southern Cairo. Hosni said the tombs belong to a father and his son from the Sixth Dynasty (2,374-2,191 B.C.). The two tombs were found west of the Step Pyramid by the Egyptian team having been excavating in the Saqqara area since 1986.

The first tomb which belongs to the father has a beautiful false door depicting him sitting in front of a table of sacrifices, which means he held important positions during that period. Thieves could not reach the two tombs as the father’s wood- made coffin was buried in a 20 meter-deep well found under the false door. The second tomb was adjacent to the first one. Adding the son is holding the same titles as his father. Will Obama’s image be found in this tomb? Obama Image in Tomb

Join Emptysuit On Twitter

Click On Links:
Obama Image in Tomb
The House Negro And The Field Negro
Obama Bowing To Japan’s Emperor Akihito
Michelle Obama Monkey Faces
Michelle Obama Touches Queen Elizabeth
Obama Visits Great Wall In China
Michelle Obama Chimp Image On Google
Impeach Obama
About Emptysuit
Your Opinion

2010: 07/08
CATEGORY: International Events
Leave a comment

Carly Fiorina Fox News Transcript

June 13, 2010, edition of “Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace.”

CHRIS WALLACE, ANCHOR: On Tuesday, several high-powered women won big victories in primaries around the country, and one of the biggest was the GOP Senate race in California where the former head of Hewlett- Packard, Carly Fiorina, won the right to take on three-term Democratic senator Barbara Boxer.

Boxer turned down our invitation today, but Carly Fiorina joins us now from Mountain View, California.

So, Ms. Fiorina, let’s start with the hair comment, because that’s what everybody is talking about. The day after the primary you were caught on camera talking about Senator Boxer, and you said this, “What is that hair? So yesterday.” I can’t do proper justice to your reading of that.

But since then you’ve been called a mean girl, catty, tart and unpleasant. How do you plead?

CARLY FIORINA, REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE FOR SENATE: Well, I was quoting a friend of mine. But look, I regret this whole situation. I gave people the opportunity to talk about something petty and superficial. And this is a very serious election year about serious issues.

WALLACE: Well, we’re going to get to that in a second, but I do want to ask, have you called Senator Boxer to apologize and say, “Let’s not talk about petty and superficial things?”

FIORINA: You know, what I think I owe the voters is a commitment to stay focused on facts, on issues and on the things that really matter, and I will keep that commitment to the voters.

WALLACE: All right. Give us an overview of your sense of this race. Take a minute and lay out what you think the choice is for California voters.

FIORINA: I think this election is about the direction of our state and of our nation. And in particular, it is about the direction of our economy. We are destroying jobs in California.

So while Barbara Boxer comes to California to tout the impact of the stimulus bill, the reality is that the unemployment situation in California has deteriorated since the passage of the stimulus bill.

We now face 12.6 percent unemployment. We have 2.3 million Californians out of work, hundreds of thousands of them for more than six months. Hundreds of thousands of Californians have quit looking for work.

We’re not just going through tough economic times in California. We are destroying jobs. And we’re destroying them because of a government that is too big, taxes that are too high, regulations that are too thick. So this election is about jobs, but it’s also about out-of-control government.

And the reason I am running for the Senate is because so much of the Senate’s work impacts every family and every business in California and, indeed, in our nation. The Endangered Species Act…

WALLACE: But…

FIORINA: … the health care bill, taxes — all of these things are helping to create an economic situation that is getting worse in our state, not better.

WALLACE: But, Ms. Fiorina, if the issue is jobs, Senator Boxer says your record is what you did as the head of Hewlett-Packard. And the record shows, according to her — and it’s not just her; the facts are that during that time you laid off more than 30,000 American workers, and many of those jobs went to India and China.

FIORINA: It is true, I managed Hewlett-Packard through the worst technology recession in 25 years. And in those tough times, we had to make some tough calls.

It is also true that, net-net, we created jobs. We doubled the size of the company from 44 billion to 88 billion. We tripled the rate of innovation to 11 patents a day. We quintupled the cash flow. We improved the…

WALLACE: But — but — but…

FIORINA: … profitability in…

WALLACE: … but if I may…

FIORINA: … every product segment and …

WALLACE: … what about the 30,000 American jobs that you let — you laid off?

FIORINA: You know, every family and every business in California knows what it means to go through tough times. And every family is cutting back, and every business is laying off right now.

I don’t say that with delight. I say that with sorrow. But yes, it is true that jobs are being taken out of California. By the way, China fights harder for our jobs than we do. Texas fights for our jobs. Nevada fights for our jobs. North Carolina fights for our jobs. We have to start fighting for our jobs in this nation and in our state. And what does that mean? It means something really basic, like let’s give a tax break to bring manufacturing home. Let’s make sure that agriculture remains a good credit risk. It has become a poor credit risk because of the impact of no water as a result of the Endangered Species Act.

Let’s make sure that when we turn up wind factories in Texas the wind turbines aren’t manufactured in China, which is what’s going on now. The truth is in California you can’t build a new manufacturing facility, and businesses are leaving in droves because of bad government policy.

WALLACE: All right.

FIORINA: That’s what we have to turn around. And by the way, I know how to create jobs, and I know why they leave. And Barbara Boxer believes the only way to create a job is to tax people and grow government.

The reason people in California are outraged is because while they are going through tough economic times, and suffering with 12.6 percent unemployment rates, the federal government is growing its employees at 14.5 percent a year.

WALLACE: All right. Let me get to some of the other issues, because some analysts say, Ms. Fiorina, that you had to move to the right during the Republican primary to win that, and you took some positions that are going to be hard sells to the general electorate come November.

And let’s talk about a couple of those. First of all, during a debate, you said that people on the no-fly list for alleged terror connections — people on the no-fly list should be able to go out and buy guns. Isn’t that a security risk?

FIORINA: Well, it might be if the no-fly list was better managed. But the truth is Ted Kennedy was on the no-fly list. A 7- year-old boy was on the no-fly list. My wonderful sister-in-law was on the no-fly list. My chief of…

WALLACE: But there are also some bad guys who…

FIORINA: … staff’s husband was on the no…

WALLACE: But there are also some…

FIORINA: That’s right. And if…

WALLACE: … bad guys on the no-fly list. Don’t you want to prevent them from getting guns?

FIORINA: Well, sure, if we really knew who the bad guys were, and those were the only people on the no-fly list, but the truth is the no-fly list, by the government’s own admission, is far too broad.

So why should a law-abiding U.S. citizen who has the right to bear arms be prevented from doing so because of government incompetence? This is what people are crazed over. We have a government getting bigger and bigger, taxes getting higher and higher, but we don’t see improving competence. We see deteriorating competence. And…

WALLACE: All right. Let me — let me ask you about another question. On illegal immigration, you support the Arizona crackdown, the new law in Arizona. What do you say to those Latino voters — and it’s a big voting bloc in California — who say this is going to lead to racial profiling?

FIORINA: You know, I’m very proud of the large number of Hispanic endorsements that I’ve received. And when I talk with members of the Latino community — and I will continue to reach out to them — what they say to me is you know what, this is a question of criminals crossing the border.

The truth is this. The federal government isn’t doing its job. It’s the federal government’s job to secure the border. The Obama administration has de-funded securing the border.

And while Barbara Boxer stands up and challenges the constitutionality of the Arizona law and vilifies people of Arizona, what she should be doing — what I would be doing — is figuratively standing on the president’s desk and saying, “Mr. President, the federal government needs to do its job and secure the border.”

WALLACE: OK. You oppose abortion, except in the case of rape and incest. Now, I don’t have to tell you that Barbara Boxer has made choice a big issue in prior elections. And we’ve looked at the polls. Most Californians agree with her.

FIORINA: But you know, most Californians disagree with Barbara Boxer’s extreme views. She believes in taxpayer funding for partial birth abortions. Most Californians don’t agree with that.

And yes, there are Californians who disagree with me on the sanctity of life. But the vast majority of Californians also say that the issue in this election is jobs, and the issue in this election is out-of-control government spending, out-of-control debt, out-of- control regulations and out-of-control taxation.

WALLACE: So are you saying…

FIORINA: And those are the issues…

WALLACE: … that the social issues — are you saying the social issues should not be what people vote on?

FIORINA: Look, I believe what I believe, and I will not run away from what I believe, and I’ve been very open about what I believe. And I’m not a career politician, so for me this isn’t about running to the center, or changing who I am and what I believe.

But I also know this. This election is about jobs, and it is about out-of-control government, and those are the issues upon which this election will be won and lost, and that is why I believe I will win, because Barbara Boxer’s track record on jobs is terrible, and she has never met a tax increase she didn’t love or a spending bill she didn’t approve, unless, of course, it was to fund body armor for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, or give them extended family leave, or any of the things that are necessary to protect our nation.

WALLACE: Ms. Fiorina, we have less than a minute left. Democrats have won the last seven straight Senate races in California. In less than a minute, how do you break through?

FIORINA: Well, records are meant to be broken. And the people of California have had enough. It’s what every poll says, whether they’re Democrats, independents or Republicans.

The people of California have had enough of the destruction of jobs, of bad government policy, of out-of-control government spending, government taxation, government debt. The people of California have had enough, and they know that to take their government back, make it listen and make it work, we have to change the people we send to Washington.

WALLACE: Ms. Fiorina, we’re going to have to leave it there. We want to thank you so much for joining us today, and we promise we’ll stay on top of your race all the way to November.

FIORINA: Thanks so much, Chris, for having me.

Join Emptysuit On Twitter

Click On Links:
Obama “Ass To Kick” Transcript
Alvin Greene South Carolina Senate Candidate
Easy As Taking Cells From An Embryo
Rand Paul Comment On Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Transcript)
Complete Tape Of Rep. Emmanuel Cleaver
Spitting Incident
Gaza: The Killing Zone (warning graphic images)
52% Say Obama Doesn’t Deserve Re-election In 2012
About Emptysuit
Your Opinion

2010: 06/14
CATEGORY: Transcripts
4 comments

Rand Paul Comment On Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Transcript)

PAUL: Thank you, Rachel, and thank you for that wonderful intro piece, quite a collection.

MADDOW: I know this must feel like frying pan and into the fire here, so soon after the election with really being the focus of this national storm right now. Everybody is trying to figure out what you meant by these things. But let’s talk about it.

PAUL: Yes.

MADDOW: Was “The Courier-Journal” right? Do you believe that private business people should be able to decide whether they want to serve black people or gays or any other minority group, as they said?

PAUL: Well, I think to put things in perspective, when “The Courier-Journal” does not endorse a Republican, that’s not something very unusual in our state. They typically don’t endorse Republicans, and it’s a very Democratic paper.

But with regard to racism, I don`t believe in any racism. I don`t think we should have any government racism, any institutional form of racism. You know, one interesting historical tidbit, one of my favorite historical characters is William Lloyd Garrison. And one of the interesting things about desegregation and putting people together, do you know when it happened in Boston?

MADDOW: What do you mean, the desegregation? In general?

PAUL: You know when we got — you know, when we got rid of the Jim Crow laws and when we got rid of segregation and a lot of the abhorrent practices in the South, do you know when we got rid of it in Boston?

MADDOW: I — why don’t you tell me what you`re getting at?

PAUL: Well, it was in 1840. So I think it is sort of a stain on the history of America that 120 years to desegregate the South.

But William Lloyd Garrison was a champion and abolitionist who wrote about freeing the slaves back in the 1810s, ’20s and ’30s and labored in obscurity (ph) to do this. He was flagged, put in jails. He was with Frederick Douglass being thrown off trains.

But, you know, they desegregated transportation in Boston in 1840, and I think that was an impressive and amazing thing. But also points out the sadness that it took us 120 years to desegregate the South. And a lot of that was institutional racism was absolutely wrong and something that I absolutely oppose.

MADDOW: In terms of legal remedies for persistent discrimination, though, if there was a private business, say, in Louisville, say, somewhere in your home state, that wanted to not serve black patrons and wanted to not serve gay patrons, or somebody else on the basis of their — on the basis of a characteristic that they decided they didn’t like as a private business owner — would you think they had a legal right to do so, to put up a “blacks not served here” sign?

PAUL: Well, the interesting thing is, you know, you look back to the 1950s and 1960s at the problems we faced. There were incredible problems. You know, the problems had to do with mostly voting, they had to do with schools, they had to do with public housing. And so, this is what the civil rights largely addressed, and all things that I largely agree with.

MADDOW: But what about private businesses? I mean, I hate to — I don`t want to be badgering you on this, but I do want an answer.

PAUL: I’m not — I’m not –

MADDOW: Do you think that a private business has the right to say we don’t serve black people?

PAUL: Yes. I’m not in favor of any discrimination of any form. I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race. We still do have private clubs in America that can discriminate based on race.

But I think what’s important about this debate is not written into any specific “gotcha” on this, but asking the question: what about freedom of speech? Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent? Should we limit racists from speaking?

I don’t want to be associated with those people, but I also don’t want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that’s one of the things freedom requires is that we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn’t mean we approve of it. I think the problem with this debate is by getting muddled down into it, the implication is somehow that I would approve of any racism or discrimination, and I don’t in any form or fashion.

MADDOW: But isn’t being in favor of civil rights but against the Civil Rights Act a little like saying you’re against high cholesterol but you’re in favor of fried cheese?

PAUL: But I’m not against –

MADDOW: I mean, the Civil Rights Act was the federal government stepping in to protect civil rights because they weren’t otherwise being protected. It wasn’t a hypothetical. There were businesses that were saying black people cannot be served here and the federal government stepped in and said, no, you actually don’t have that choice to make. The federal government is coming in and saying you can’t make that choice as a business owner.

Which side of that debate would you put yourself on?

PAUL: In the totality of it, I’m in favor of the federal government being involved in civil rights and that’s, you know, mostly what the Civil Rights Act was about. And that was ending institutional racism.

MADDOW: When you –

PAUL: And I’m in favor of — I’m opposed to any form of governmental racism or discrimination or segregation, all of the things we fought in the South, in fact, like I say, I think it’s a stain on our history that we went 120 years from when the North desegregated and when those battles were fought in the North. And I like to think that, you know, even though I was a year old at the time, that I would have marched with Martin Luther King because I believed in what he was doing.

MADDOW: But if you were in the –

(CROSSTALK)

PAUL: But, you know, most of the things he was fighting — most of the things he –

MADDOW: I`m sorry to interrupt you. Go on, sir.

PAUL: Most of the things he were fighting — most of the things that he was fighting were laws. He was fighting Jim Crow laws. He was fighting legalized and institutional racism. And I’d be right there with him.

MADDOW: But maybe voting against the Civil Rights Act which wasn’t just about governmental discrimination but public accommodations, the idea that people who provided services that were open to the public had to do so in a nondiscriminatory fashion.

Let me ask you a specific so we don’t get into the esoteric hypotheticals here.

PAUL: Well, there’s 10 — there’s 10 different — there’s 10 different titles, you know, to the Civil Rights Act, and nine out of 10 deal with public institutions. And I’m absolutely in favor of one deals with private institutions, and had I been around, I would have tried to modify that.

But you know, the other thing about legislation — and this is why it’s a little hard to say exactly where you are sometimes, is that when you support nine out of 10 things in a good piece of legislation, do you vote for it or against it? And I think, sometimes, those are difficult situations.

What I was asked by “The Courier-Journal” and I stick by it is that I do defend and believe that the government should not be involved with institutional racism or discrimination or segregation in schools, busing, all those things. But had I been there, there would have been some discussion over one of the titles of the civil rights.

And I think that’s a valid point, and still a valid discussion, because the thing is, is if we want to harbor in on private businesses and their policies, then you have to have the discussion about: do you want to abridge the First Amendment as well. Do you want to say that because people say abhorrent things — you know, we still have this. We’re having all this debate over hate speech and this and that. Can you have a newspaper and say abhorrent things? Can you march in a parade and believe in abhorrent things, you know?

So, I think it’s an important debate but should be intellectual one. It’s really tough to have an intellectual debate in the political sense because what happens is it gets dumbed down. It will get dumb down to three words and they’ll try to run on this entire issue, and it’s being brought up as a political issue.

I think if you listen to me, I think you should understand that — I think you do, I think you’re an intelligent person. I like being on your show. But I think that what is the totality of what I’m saying — am I a bad person? Do I believe in awful things? No.

I really think that discrimination and racism is a horrible thing. And I don’t want any form of it in our government, in our public sphere.

MADDOW: The reason that this is something that I’m not letting go even though I now realize it would make the conversation more comfortable to move on to other things and I think this is going to be a focus for national attention on you, I guess until there’s at least clarity on it, is that issue of the tenth, not the nine, but the tenth out of the 10 portions — proportions of the — the tenth of the Civil Rights Act that you would want to have discussions about. As I understand it, what you`re saying, that’s the portion of the Civil Rights Act that said you can’t actually have segregated lunch counters here at your private business.

I mean, when Bob Jones University in the year 2000 –

PAUL: Well, it’s interesting. Actually, it’s even –

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW: Hold on just one second. Until the year 2000, Bob Jones University, a private institution, had a ban on interracial dating at their school, their private institution. If Bob Jones University wanted to bring that back now, would you support their right to do so?

PAUL: Well, I think it’s interesting because the debate involves more than just that, because the debate also involves a lot of court cases with regard to the commerce clause. For example, right now, many states and many gun organizations are saying they have a right to carry a gun in a public restaurant because a public restaurant is not a private restaurant. Therefore, they have a right to carry their gun in there and that the restaurant has no right to have rules to their restaurant.

So, you see how this could be turned on many liberal observers who want to excoriate me on this. Then to be consistent, they’d have to say, oh, well, yes, absolutely, you’ve got your right to carry your gun anywhere because it’s a public place.

So, you see, when you blur the distinction between public and private, there are problems. When you blur the distinction between public and private ownership, there really is a problem. A lot of this was settled a long time ago and isn’t being debated anymore.

MADDOW: But it could be brought up at any moment. I mean, if there – - let’s say there’s a town right now and the owner of the town’s swimming club says we’re not going to allow black kids at our pool, and the owner of the bowling alley in town says, we’re not actually going to allow black patrons, and the owner of the skating rink in town says, we’re not going to allow black people to skate here.

And you may think that’s abhorrent and you may think that’s bad business. But unless it’s illegal, there’s nothing to stop that — there’s nothing under your world view to stop the country from re-segregating like we were before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 –

PAUL: Right.

MADDOW: — which you’re saying you’ve got some issues with.

PAUL: Well, the interesting thing is, is that there’s nothing right now to prevent a lot of re-segregating. We had a lot of it over the last 30 or 40 years.

What I would say is that we did some very important things in the ’60s that I’m all in favor of and that was desegregating the schools, desegregating public transportation, use public roads and public monopolies, desegregating public water fountains.

MADDOW: How about desegregating lunch counters? Lunch counters. Walgreen’s lunch counters, were you in favor of that? Possibly? Because the government got involved?

(CROSSTALK)

PAUL: Right. Well, what it gets into is, is that then if you decide that restaurants are publicly owned and not privately owned, then do you say that you should have the right to bring your gun into a restaurant, even though the owner of the restaurant says, well, no, we don’t want to have guns in here.

The bar says we don’t want to have guns in here, because people might drink and start fighting and shoot each other. Does the owner of the restaurant own his restaurant? Or does the government own his restaurant?

These are important philosophical debates but not very practical discussion. And I think we can make something out of this –

MADDOW: Well, it’s pretty practical to people who were — had their life nearly beaten out of them trying to desegregate Walgreen’s lunch counters despite these esoteric debates about gun ownership. This is not a hypothetical, Dr. Paul.

PAUL: Yes, but I — yes. Well, but I think what you`re doing, Rachel, is you’re conflating the issue.

MADDOW: No.

PAUL: You’re saying that somehow this abstract discussion of private property has any bit of condoning for violence. This — there’s nothing in what I’m saying that condones any violence and any kind of violence like that deserves to be put — people like that deserve to be put in jail. So nobody’s condoning any of that.

MADDOW: Well, I understand that you’re not condoning violence, but the people who were beating for trying to desegregate Woolworth`s lunch counters weren’t asking to be beaten. They’re asking –

PAUL: Those people should have gone –

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW: — for private businesses to be desegregated by the government. You’re saying those people should have gone to different places? Left them segregated?

PAUL: People who commit — people who commit violence on other individuals should go to prison and go to jail. And there’s nothing we should ever do to condone violence on other individuals.

MADDOW: And should Woolworth lunch counter should have been allowed to stay segregated? Sir, just yes or no.

PAUL: What I think would happen — what I’m saying is, is that I don’t believe in any discrimination. I don’t believe in any private property should discriminate either. And I wouldn’t attend, wouldn’t support, wouldn’t go to.

But what you have to answer when you answer this point of view, which is an abstract, obscure conversation from 1964 that you want to bring up. But if you want to answer, you have to say then that you decide the rules for all restaurants and then you decide that you want to allow them to carry weapons into restaurants.

MADDOW: I can — we could have a fight about the Second Amendment.

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW: But I think wanting to allow private industry — private businesses –

PAUL: It’s the same fight. It’s the same fight.

MADDOW: — to discriminate along the basis of race because of property rights is an extreme view and I think that’s going to be the focus nationally on your candidacy now and you’re going to have a lot more debates like this. So, I hope you don’t hold it against me for bringing it up. I think this is going to be a continuing discussion for a long time, Dr. Paul.

PAUL: Well, I think what you’ve done is you bring up something that really is not an issue, nothing I’ve ever spoken about or have any indication that I`m interested in any legislation concerning. So, what you bring up is sort of a red herring or something that you want to pit. It’s a political ploy. I mean, it’s brought up as an attack weapon from the other side, and that’s the way it will be used.

But, you know, I think a lot of times these attacks fall back on themselves, and I don’t think it will have any effect because the thing is, is that every fiber of my being doesn’t believe in discrimination, doesn’t believe that we should have that in our society. And to imply otherwise is just dishonest.

MADDOW: Dr. Rand Paul, Republican nominee for the United States Senate in Kentucky, where he’ll be representing not only his own views about how to live but what kind of laws we should have in America, sir, I enjoy talking with these things about you. I couldn’t disagree with you more about this issue, but I do respect you for coming on the show, and for being able to have this civil discussion about it. Thank you.

PAUL: Thank you, Rachel.

Follow Emptysuit On Twitter

Click On Link:
Rand Paul Defends His Views On Race
Swastika Next To Obama On Golf Course
Glenn Beck calls Obama a racist
Black People Don’t Like Black Conservatives
Complete Tape Of Rep. Emmanuel Cleaver
Spitting Incident
Michelle Obama Monkey Faces
The Audacity Of Hope Page 261
White America Hate Barack Obama
Michelle Obama called “Ghetto Girl”
Michelle Obama Chimp Image On Google
Child Dies In House Fire, Aunt Concerned About Her Food Stamps
The House Negro And The Field Negro
Obama ‘Buckwheat’
Somalia Use Portraits Of Obama For Target Practice

2010: 05/20
CATEGORY: Transcripts
9 comments

New Orleans New Disaster, Obama’s Oil Spill

Join Emptysuit On Twitter

Click On Link:
Obama Brush Aside Gulf Oil Spill, Leave It Up To BP
Car Bomb In Times Square
Arizona’s New Immigration Law
Illegal Aliens In Arizona
Immigration Riots In Arizona
Obama Cheating With Campaign Aide Vera Baker
The House Negro And The Field Negro
Children Singing To Hitler vs Obama
Children Praising Barack Hussein Obama
Swastika Next To Obama On Golf Course
Ahmadinejad Tells Obama, Get Some Experience
Michelle Obama Chimp Image On Google

2010: 05/02
CATEGORY: National Issues
1 comment

Obama Brush Aside Gulf Oil Spill, Leave It Up To BP

BP Plc will bear the costs associated with an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that the Obama administration has declared an event of “national significance.” BP is ultimately responsible for funding the cost of response and cleanup operations as required under the 1990 Oil Pollution Act, drafted after the Exxon Valdez incident.

Full-text of Oil Pollution Act

The Oil Pollution Act (101 H.R.1465, P.L. 101-380) was passed by the United States Congress to prevent further oil spills from occurring in the United States. It was written and passed into law after the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill.

The law stated that companies must have a “plan to prevent spills that may occur” and have a “detailed containment and cleanup plan” for oil spills. The law also includes a clause that prohibits any vessel that, after March 22, 1989, has caused an oil spill of more than one million U.S. gallons (3,800 m³) in any marine area, from operating in Prince William Sound.

The bill enjoyed widespread support, passing the House 375-5 and the Senate by voice vote before conference, and unanimously in both chambers after conference.

In April 1998, Exxon argued in a legal action against the federal government that the Exxon Valdez should be allowed back into Alaskan waters. Exxon claimed the OPA was effectively a bill of attainder, a regulation that was unfairly directed at Exxon alone. In 2002, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Exxon. As of 2002, OPA had prevented 18 ships from entering Prince William Sound.

The Oil Pollution Act (OPA) was signed into law in August 1990, largely in response to rising public concern following the Exxon Valdez incident. The OPA improved the nation’s ability to prevent and respond to oil spills by establishing provisions that expand the federal government’s ability, and provide the money and resources necessary, to respond to oil spills. The OPA also created the national Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, which is available to provide up to one billion dollars per spill incident.

In addition, the OPA provided new requirements for contingency planning both by government and industry. The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) has been expanded in a three-tiered approach: the Federal government is required to direct all public and private response efforts for certain types of spill events; Area Committees — composed of federal, state, and local government officials — must develop detailed, location-specific Area Contingency Plans; and owners or operators of vessels and certain facilities that pose a serious threat to the environment must prepare their own Facility Response Plans.

Finally, the OPA increased penalties for regulatory noncompliance, broadened the response and enforcement authorities of the Federal government, and preserved State authority to establish law governing oil spill prevention and response.

Key Provisions of the Oil Pollution Act

§1002(a) Provides that the responsible party for a vessel or facility from which oil is discharged, or which poses a substantial threat of a discharge, is liable for: (1) certain specified damages resulting from the discharged oil; and (2) removal costs incurred in a manner consistent with the National Contingency Plan (NCP).

§1002(c) Exceptions to the Clean Water Act (CWA) liability provisions include: (1) discharges of oil authorized by a permit under Federal, State, or local law; (2) discharges of oil from a public vessel; or (3) discharges of oil from onshore facilities covered by the liability provisions of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act.

§1002(d) Provides that if a responsible party can establish that the removal costs and damages resulting from an incident were caused solely by an act or omission by a third party, the third party will be held liable for such costs and damages.

§1004 The liability for tank vessels larger than 3,000 gross tons is increased to $1,200 per gross ton or $10 million, whichever is greater. Responsible parties at onshore facilities and deepwater ports are liable for up to $350 millon per spill; holders of leases or permits for offshore facilities, except deepwater ports, are liable for up to $75 million per spill, plus removal costs. The Federal government has the authority to adjust, by regulation, the $350 million liability limit established for onshore facilities.

§1016 Offshore facilities are required to maintain evidence of financial responsibility of $150 million and vessels and deepwater ports must provide evidence of financial responsibility up to the maximum applicable liability amount. Claims for removal costs and damages may be asserted directly against the guarantor providing evidence of financial responsibility.

§1018(a) The Clean Water Act does not preempt State Law. States may impose additional liability (including unlimited liability), funding mechanisms, requirements for removal actions, and fines and penalties for responsible parties.

§1019 States have the authority to enforce, on the navigable waters of the State, OPA requirements for evidence of financial responsibility. States are also given access to Federal funds (up to $250,000 per incident) for immediate removal, mitigation, or prevention of a discharge, and may be reimbursed by the Trust fund for removal and monitoring costs incurred during oil spill response and cleanup efforts that are consistent with the National Contingency Plan (NCP).

§4202 Strengthens planning and prevention activities by: (1) providing for the establishment of spill contingency plans for all areas of the U.S. (2) mandating the development of response plans for individual tank vessels and certain facilities for responding to a worst case discharge or a substantial threat of such a discharge; and (3) providing requirements for spill removal equipment and periodic inspections.

§4301(a) and (c) The fine for failing to notify the appropriate Federal agency of a discharge is increased from a maximum of $10,000 to a maximum of $250,000 for an individual or $500,000 for an organization. The maximum prison term is also increased from one year to five years. The penalties for violations have a maximum of $250,000 and 15 years in prison.

§4301(b) Civil penalties are authorized at $25,000 for each day of violation or $1,000 per barrel of oil discharged. Failure to comply with a Federal removal order can result in civil penalties of up to $25,000 for each day of violation.

§9001(a) Amends the Internal Revenue Act of 1986 to consolidate funds established under other statutes and to increase permitted levels of expenditures. Penalties and funds established under several laws are consolidated, and the Trust Fund borrowing limit is increased from $500 million to $1 billion.

Sixteen federal agencies have been mobilized to respond to the spill. The leak, caused by an explosion on a drilling rig last week, is spewing about 5,000 barrels of crude oil a day, five times more than previously estimated. The effort to combat the leak and skim crude from the sea is costing BP and its partners in the well $6 million a day. An Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, established after the Exxon Valdez crash, could also help cover the spill’s costs. The fund, which garners 8 cents from the industry for every barrel of oil produced or imported, has about $1.6 billion for covering damages to coastal residents and businesses.

BP. It’s the well’s leaseholder and operator, and its shares were down more than 10 percent by midday Friday, from where they stood at the start of last week. The company has lost more than $20 billion in market value since April 20 – a hit that reflects public-relations damage to the firm as well as cleanup costs and other legal damages investors expect it will pay.

Transocean. This is the owner of the Deepwater Horizon rig that BP was using. Transocean shares have fallen 15 percent in the same period.

Halliburton and Cameron International. These two firms are other contractors that did work on the rig. Their share prices have also fallen, but not as sharply as BP’s or Transocean’s. Cameron made the “blowout preventer” that was supposed to seal off the well in an accident.

For all these firms, the biggest one-day drop occurred Thursday, as the magnitude of the environmental impacts became clearer. The stocks all regained a bit of ground by Friday morning, as industry analysts argued that Thursday’s plunge had overplayed the financial and legal costs facing the firms.

Obama sent the secretaries of interior and homeland security and the head of the Environmental Protection Agency to go to the region to oversee the effort to contain and clean up the spill and “determine it’s cause. As you know, Obama doesn’t have the time to address an oil spill larger then the Exxon Valdez.

Join Emptysuit On Twitter

Click On Link:
Arizona’s New Immigration Law
Illegal Aliens In Arizona
Immigration Riots In Arizona
Greek Economic Crisis Could Spread
Noriega’s Extradition: Former Panama Dictator
The House Negro And The Field Negro
Goldman Sachs Lawsuit
Rush Limbaugh: Obama Anti-Arizona Police (Transcript)
Children Singing To Hitler vs Obama
Children Praising Barack Hussein Obama
Swastika Next To Obama On Golf Course
Ahmadinejad Tells Obama, Get Some Experience
Michelle Obama Chimp Image On Google
Sarkozy Outshines Obama In MidEast Mediation
Obama ‘Buckwheat’
Obama: At A Certain Point You’ve Made Enough Money (Transcript)
Child Dies In House Fire, Aunt
Concerned About Her Food Stamps

2010: 04/30
CATEGORY: National Issues
6 comments

Arizona’s New Immigration Law

Arizona’s new immigration law• Prohibits state, city or county officials from limiting or restricting “the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law” and allows an Arizona resident to sue an official or agency that adopts or implements a policy that does so. The bill contains a “loser pays” provision meant to deter frivolous lawsuits.

• Requires law enforcement to make a reasonable attempt “when practicable” to determine the immigration status of a person if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is in the U.S. illegally. Officers do not have to do so “if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.”

• Makes it a state crime to be an illegal immigrant by creating a state charge of “willful failure to complete or carry an alien-registration document.”

• Makes it a crime for illegal immigrants to work or solicit work in Arizona.

• Makes it a crime to pick up a day laborer for work if the vehicle impedes traffic and also makes a day laborer subject to criminal charges if he or she is picked up and the vehicle involved impedes traffic.

• Makes it a crime to conceal, harbor or shield an illegal immigrant if the person knows or recklessly disregards the immigrant’s legal status. It does create a legal defense for someone providing emergency, public-safety or public-health services to illegal immigrants.

• Allows law-enforcement officials to arrest a person without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe the person has committed a public offense that makes him or her removable from the U.S.

• Requires employers to keep E-Verify records of employees’ eligibility.

• Reiterates Arizona’s intent to not comply with the Real ID Act of 2005, including the use of a radio-frequency ID chip.

Senate Engrossed
State of Arizona
Senate
Forty-ninth Legislature
Second Regular Session2010

SENATE BILL 1070 (Full Text SENATE BILL 1070)

AN ACT AMENDING TITLE 11, CHAPTER 7, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING ARTICLE 8; AMENDING TITLE 13, CHAPTER 15, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING SECTION 13-1509; AMENDING SECTION 13-2319, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES; AMENDING TITLE 13, CHAPTER 29, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING SECTIONS 13-2928 AND 13-2929; AMENDING SECTIONS 23-212, 23-212.01, 23-214 AND 28-3511, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES; AMENDING TITLE 41, CHAPTER 12, ARTICLE 2, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING SECTION 41-1724; RELATING TO UNLAWFULLY PRESENT ALIENS.

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:

Section 1. Intent

The legislature finds that there is a compelling interest in the cooperative enforcement of federal immigration laws throughout all of Arizona. The legislature declares that the intent of this act is to make attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local government agencies in Arizona. The provisions of this act are intended to work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States.

Sec. 2. Title 11, chapter 7, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding article 8, to read:

ARTICLE 8. ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS 11-1051. Cooperation and assistance in enforcement of immigration laws; indemnification

A. NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY ADOPT A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

C. IF AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IS CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF STATE OR LOCAL LAW, ON DISCHARGE FROM IMPRISONMENT OR ASSESSMENT OF ANY FINE THAT IS IMPOSED, THE ALIEN SHALL BE TRANSFERRED IMMEDIATELY TO THE CUSTODY OF THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION.

D. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY MAY SECURELY TRANSPORT AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES AND WHO IS IN THE AGENCY’S CUSTODY TO A FEDERAL FACILITY IN THIS STATE OR TO ANY OTHER POINT OF TRANSFER INTO FEDERAL CUSTODY THAT IS OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.

E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.

F. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN FEDERAL LAW, OFFICIALS OR AGENCIES OF THIS STATE AND COUNTIES, CITIES, TOWNS AND OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THIS STATE MAY NOT BE PROHIBITED OR IN ANY WAY BE RESTRICTED FROM SENDING, RECEIVING OR MAINTAINING INFORMATION RELATING TO THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF ANY INDIVIDUAL OR EXCHANGING THAT INFORMATION WITH ANY OTHER FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY FOR THE FOLLOWING OFFICIAL PURPOSES:

1.DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR ANY PUBLIC BENEFIT, SERVICE OR LICENSE PROVIDED BY ANY FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE.

2. VERIFYING ANY CLAIM OF RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE IF DETERMINATION OF RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE IS REQUIRED UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS STATE OR A JUDICIAL ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO A CIVIL OR CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IN THIS STATE.

3. CONFIRMING THE IDENTITY OF ANY PERSON WHO IS DETAINED.

4. IF THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN, DETERMINING WHETHER THE PERSON IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FEDERAL REGISTRATION LAWS PRESCRIBED BY TITLE II, CHAPTER OF THE FEDERAL IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT.

G. A PERSON MAY BRING AN ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE ANY OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ADOPTS OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW. IF THERE IS A JUDICIAL FINDING THAT AN ENTITY HAS VIOLATED THIS SECTION, THE COURT SHALL ORDER ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

1. THAT THE PERSON WHO BROUGHT THE ACTION RECOVER COURT COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES.

2. THAT THE ENTITY PAY A CIVIL PENALTY OF NOT LESS THAN ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NOT MORE THAN FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR EACH DAY THAT THE POLICY HAS REMAINED IN EFFECT AFTER THE FILING OF AN ACTION PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION.

H. A COURT SHALL COLLECT THE CIVIL PENALTY PRESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION G AND REMIT THE CIVIL PENALTY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY FOR DEPOSIT IN THE GANG AND IMMIGRATION INTELLIGENCE TEAM ENFORCEMENT MISSION FUND ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 41-1724.

I. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IS INDEMNIFIED BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER’S AGENCY AGAINST REASONABLE COSTS AND EXPENSES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY FEES, INCURRED BY THE OFFICER IN CONNECTION WITH ANY ACTION, SUIT OR PROCEEDING BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION TO WHICH THE OFFICER MAY BE A PARTY BY REASON OF THE OFFICER BEING OR HAVING BEEN A MEMBER OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, EXCEPT IN RELATION TO MATTERS IN WHICH THE OFFICER IS ADJUDGED TO HAVE ACTED IN BAD FAITH.

J. THIS SECTION SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH FEDERAL LAWS REGULATING IMMIGRATION, PROTECTING THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF ALL PERSONS AND RESPECTING THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF UNITED STATES CITIZENS.

Sec. 3. Title 13, chapter 15, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding section 13-1509, to read:

13-1509. Trespassing by illegal aliens; assessment; exception; classification

A. IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF TRESPASSING IF THE PERSON IS BOTH:

1. PRESENT ON ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LAND IN THIS STATE.

2. IN VIOLATION OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a). S.B. 1070

B. IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS SECTION, THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF AN ALIEN’S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE DETERMINED BY EITHER:

1. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO IS AUTHORIZED BY THE FEDERAL

GOVERNMENT TO VERIFY OR ASCERTAIN AN ALIEN’S IMMIGRATION STATUS.

2. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY COMMUNICATING WITH THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES BORDER PROTECTION PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

C. A PERSON WHO IS SENTENCED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR SUSPENSION OR COMMUTATION OF SENTENCE OR RELEASE ON ANY BASIS UNTIL THE SENTENCE IMPOSED IS SERVED.

D. IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER PENALTY PRESCRIBED BY LAW, THE COURT SHALL ORDER THE PERSON TO PAY JAIL COSTS AND AN ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT IN THE FOLLOWING AMOUNTS:

1. AT LEAST FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS FOR A FIRST VIOLATION.

2. TWICE THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED IN PARAGRAPH 1 OF THIS SUBSECTION IF THE PERSON WAS PREVIOUSLY SUBJECT TO AN ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION.

E. A COURT SHALL COLLECT THE ASSESSMENTS PRESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION D OF THIS SECTION AND REMIT THE ASSESSMENTS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, WHICH SHALL ESTABLISH A SPECIAL SUBACCOUNT FOR THE MONIES IN THE ACCOUNT ESTABLISHED FOR THE GANG AND IMMIGRATION INTELLIGENCE TEAM ENFORCEMENT MISSION APPROPRIATION. MONIES IN THE SPECIAL SUBACCOUNT ARE SUBJECT TO LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATION FOR DISTRIBUTION FOR GANG AND IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT AND FOR COUNTY JAIL REIMBURSEMENT COSTS RELATING TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.

F. THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO A PERSON WHO MAINTAINS AUTHORIZATION FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO REMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES.

G. A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS A CLASS 1 MISDEMEANOR, EXCEPT THAT A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS:

1. A CLASS 3 FELONY IF THE PERSON VIOLATES THIS SECTION WHILE IN POSSESSION OF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

(a) A DANGEROUS DRUG AS DEFINED IN SECTION 13-3401.

(b) PRECURSOR CHEMICALS THAT ARE USED IN THE MANUFACTURING OF METHAMPHETAMINE IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 13-3404.01.

(d) PROPERTY THAT IS USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMMITTING AN ACT OF TERRORISM AS PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 13-2308.01.

2. A CLASS 4 FELONY IF THE PERSON EITHER:

(a) IS CONVICTED OF A SECOND OR SUBSEQUENT VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION.

(b) WITHIN SIXTY MONTHS BEFORE THE VIOLATION, HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE UNITED STATES PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1229a OR HAS ACCEPTED A VOLUNTARY REMOVAL FROM THE UNITED STATES PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1229c.

Sec. 4. Section 13-2319, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

13-2319. Smuggling; classification; definitions

A. It is unlawful for a person to intentionally engage in the smuggling of human beings for profit or commercial purpose.

B. A violation of this section is a class 4 felony.

C. Notwithstanding subsection B of this section, a violation of this section:

1. Is a class 2 felony if the human being who is smuggled is under eighteen years of age and is not accompanied by a family member over eighteen years of age or the offense involved the use of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.

2. Is a class 3 felony if the offense involves the use or threatened use of deadly physical force and the person is not eligible for suspension of sentence, probation, pardon or release from confinement on any other basis except pursuant to section 31-233, subsection A or B until the sentence imposed by the court is served, the person is eligible for release pursuant to section 41-1604.07 or the sentence is commuted.

D. Chapter 10 of this title does not apply to a violation of subsection C, paragraph 1 of this section.

E. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A PEACE OFFICER MAY LAWFULLY STOP ANY PERSON WHO IS OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE IF THE OFFICER HAS REASONABLE SUSPICION TO BELIEVE THE PERSON IS IN VIOLATION OF ANY CIVIL TRAFFIC LAW AND THIS SECTION.

F. For the purposes of this section:

1. “Family member” means the person’s parent, grandparent, sibling or any other person who is related to the person by consanguinity or affinity to the second degree.

2. “Procurement of transportation” means any participation in or facilitation of transportation and includes:

(a) Providing services that facilitate transportation including travel arrangement services or money transmission services.

(b) Providing property that facilitates transportation, including a weapon, a vehicle or other means of transportation or false identification, or selling, leasing, renting or otherwise making available a drop house as defined in section 13-2322.

3. “Smuggling of human beings” means the transportation, procurement of transportation or use of property or real property by a person or an entity that knows or has reason to know that the person or persons transported or to be transported are not United States citizens, permanent resident aliens or persons otherwise lawfully in this state or have attempted to enter, entered or remained in the United States in violation of law.

Sec. 5. Title 13, chapter 29, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding sections 13-2928 and 13-2929, to read:

13-2928. Unlawful stopping to hire and pick up passengers for work; unlawful application, solicitation or employment; classification; definitions

A. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR AN OCCUPANT OF A MOTOR VEHICLE THAT IS STOPPED ON A STREET, ROADWAY OR HIGHWAY TO ATTEMPT TO HIRE OR HIRE AND PICK UP PASSENGERS FOR WORK AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION IF THE MOTOR VEHICLE BLOCKS OR IMPEDES THE NORMAL MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC.

B. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON TO ENTER A MOTOR VEHICLE THAT IS STOPPED ON A STREET, ROADWAY OR HIGHWAY IN ORDER TO BE HIRED BY AN OCCUPANT OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE AND TO BE TRANSPORTED TO WORK AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION IF THE MOTOR VEHICLE BLOCKS OR IMPEDES THE NORMAL MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC.

C. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES AND WHO IS AN UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN TO KNOWINGLY APPLY FOR WORK, SOLICIT WORK IN A PUBLIC PLACE OR PERFORM WORK AS AN EMPLOYEE OR INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR IN THIS STATE.

D. A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS A CLASS 1 MISDEMEANOR.

E. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION:

1. “SOLICIT” MEANS VERBAL OR NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION BY A GESTURE OR A NOD THAT WOULD INDICATE TO A REASONABLE PERSON THAT A PERSON IS WILLING TO BE EMPLOYED.

2. “UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN” MEANS AN ALIEN WHO DOES NOT HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT OR AUTHORIZATION UNDER FEDERAL LAW TO WORK IN THE UNITED STATES AS DESCRIBED IN 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1324a(h)(3). 13-2929.

Unlawful transporting, moving, concealing, harboring or shielding of unlawful aliens; vehicle impoundment; classification

A. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON WHO IS IN VIOLATION OF A CRIMINAL OFFENSE TO:

1. TRANSPORT OR MOVE OR ATTEMPT TO TRANSPORT OR MOVE AN ALIEN IN THIS STATE IN A MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION IF THE PERSON KNOWS OR RECKLESSLY DISREGARDS THE FACT THAT THE ALIEN HAS COME TO, HAS ENTERED OR REMAINS IN THE UNITED STATES IN VIOLATION OF LAW.

2. CONCEAL, HARBOR OR SHIELD OR ATTEMPT TO CONCEAL, HARBOR OR SHIELD AN ALIEN FROM DETECTION IN ANY PLACE IN THIS STATE, INCLUDING ANY BUILDING OR ANY MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION, IF THE PERSON KNOWS OR RECKLESSLY DISREGARDS THE FACT THAT THE ALIEN HAS COME TO, HAS ENTERED OR REMAINS IN THE UNITED STATES IN VIOLATION OF LAW.

3. ENCOURAGE OR INDUCE AN ALIEN TO COME TO OR RESIDE IN THIS STATE IF THE PERSON KNOWS OR RECKLESSLY DISREGARDS THE FACT THAT SUCH COMING TO, ENTERING OR RESIDING IN THIS STATE IS OR WILL BE IN VIOLATION OF LAW.

B. A MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION THAT IS USED IN THE COMMISSION OF A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS SUBJECT TO MANDATORY VEHICLE IMMOBILIZATION OR IMPOUNDMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 28-3511.

C. A PERSON WHO VIOLATES THIS SECTION IS GUILTY OF A CLASS 1 MISDEMEANOR AND IS SUBJECT TO A FINE OF AT LEAST ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS, EXCEPT THAT A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION THAT INVOLVES TEN OR MORE ILLEGAL ALIENS IS A CLASS 6 FELONY AND THE PERSON IS SUBJECT TO A FINE OF AT LEAST ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR EACH ALIEN WHO IS INVOLVED.

Sec. 6. Section 23-212, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

23-212. Knowingly employing unauthorized aliens; prohibition; false and frivolous complaints; violation; classification; license suspension and revocation; affirmative defense

A. An employer shall not knowingly employ an unauthorized alien. If, in the case when an employer uses a contract, subcontract or other independent contractor agreement to obtain the labor of an alien in this state, the employer knowingly contracts with an unauthorized alien or with a person who employs or contracts with an unauthorized alien to perform the labor, the employer violates this subsection.

B. The attorney general shall prescribe a complaint form for a person to allege a violation of subsection A of this section. The complainant shall not be required to list the complainant’s social security number on the complaint form or to have the complaint form notarized. On receipt of a complaint on a prescribed complaint form that an employer allegedly knowingly employs an unauthorized alien, the attorney general or county attorney shall investigate whether the employer has violated subsection A of this section. If a complaint is received but is not submitted on a prescribed complaint form, the attorney general or county attorney may investigate whether the employer has violated subsection A of this section. This subsection shall not be construed to prohibit the filing of anonymous complaints that are not submitted on a prescribed complaint form. The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin. A complaint that is submitted to a county attorney shall be submitted to the county attorney in the county in which the alleged unauthorized alien is or was employed by the employer. The county sheriff or any other local law enforcement agency may assist in investigating a complaint. When investigating a complaint, the attorney general or county attorney shall verify the work authorization of the alleged unauthorized alien with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c). A state, county or local official shall not attempt to independently make a final determination on whether an alien is authorized to work in the United States. An alien’s immigration status or work authorization status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c). A person who knowingly files a false and frivolous complaint under this subsection is guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor.

C. If, after an investigation, the attorney general or county attorney determines that the complaint is not false and frivolous:

1. The attorney general or county attorney shall notify the United States immigration and customs enforcement of the unauthorized alien.

2. The attorney general or county attorney shall notify the local law enforcement agency of the unauthorized alien.

3. The attorney general shall notify the appropriate county attorney to bring an action pursuant to subsection D of this section if the complaint was originally filed with the attorney general.

D. An action for a violation of subsection A of this section shall be brought against the employer by the county attorney in the county where the unauthorized alien employee is or was employed by the employer. The county attorney shall not bring an action against any employer for any violation of subsection A of this section that occurs before January 1, 2008. A second violation of this section shall be based only on an unauthorized alien who is or was employed by the employer after an action has been brought for a violation of subsection A of this section or section 23-212.01, subsection A.

E. For any action in superior court under this section, the court shall expedite the action, including assigning the hearing at the earliest practicable date.

F. On a finding of a violation of subsection A of this section:

1. For a first violation, as described in paragraph 3 of this subsection, the court:

(a) Shall order the employer to terminate the employment of all unauthorized aliens.

(b) Shall order the employer to be subject to a three year probationary period for the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work. During the probationary period the employer shall file quarterly reports in the form provided in section 23-722.01 with the county attorney of each new employee who is hired by the employer at the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work.

(c) Shall order the employer to file a signed sworn affidavit with the county attorney within three business days after the order is issued. The affidavit shall state that the employer has terminated the employment of all unauthorized aliens in this state and that the employer will not intentionally or knowingly employ an unauthorized alien in this state. The court shall order the appropriate agencies to suspend all licenses subject to this subdivision that are held by the employer if the employer fails to file a signed sworn affidavit with the county attorney within three business days after the order is issued. All licenses that are suspended under this subdivision shall remain suspended until the employer files a signed sworn affidavit with the county attorney. Notwithstanding any other law, on filing of the affidavit the suspended licenses shall be reinstated immediately by the appropriate agencies. For the purposes of this subdivision, the licenses that are subject to suspension under this subdivision are all licenses that are held by the employer specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work. If the employer does not hold a license specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work, but a license is necessary to operate the employer’s business in general, the licenses that are subject to suspension under this subdivision are all licenses that are held by the employer at the employer’s primary place of business. On receipt of the court’s order and notwithstanding any other law, the appropriate agencies shall suspend the licenses according to the court’s order. The court shall send a copy of the court’s order to the attorney general and the attorney general shall maintain the copy pursuant to subsection G of this section.

(d) May order the appropriate agencies to suspend all licenses described in subdivision (c) of this paragraph that are held by the employer for not to exceed ten business days. The court shall base its decision to suspend under this subdivision on any evidence or information submitted to it during the action for a violation of this subsection and shall consider the following factors, if relevant:

(i) The number of unauthorized aliens employed by the employer.

(ii) Any prior misconduct by the employer.

(iii) The degree of harm resulting from the violation.

(iv) Whether the employer made good faith efforts to comply with any applicable requirements.

(v) The duration of the violation.

(vi) The role of the directors, officers or principals of the employer in the violation.

(vii) Any other factors the court deems appropriate.

2. For a second violation, as described in paragraph 3 of this subsection, the court shall order the appropriate agencies to permanently revoke all licenses that are held by the employer specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work. If the employer does not hold a license specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work, but a license is necessary to operate the employer’s business in general, the court shall order the appropriate agencies to permanently revoke all licenses that are held by the employer at the employer’s primary place of business. On receipt of the order and notwithstanding any other law, the appropriate agencies shall immediately revoke the licenses.

3. The violation shall be considered:

(a) A first violation by an employer at a business location if the violation did not occur during a probationary period ordered by the court under this subsection or section 23-212.01, subsection F for that employer’s business location.

(b) A second violation by an employer at a business location if the violation occurred during a probationary period ordered by the court under this subsection or section 23-212.01, subsection F for that employer’s business location.

G. The attorney general shall maintain copies of court orders that are received pursuant to subsection F of this section and shall maintain a database of the employers and business locations that have a first violation of subsection A of this section and make the court orders available on the attorney general’s website.

H. On determining whether an employee is an unauthorized alien, the court shall consider only the federal government’s determination pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c). The federal government’s determination creates a rebuttable presumption of the employee’s lawful status. The court may take judicial notice of the federal government’s determination and may request the federal government to provide automated or testimonial verification pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c).

I. For the purposes of this section, proof of verifying the employment authorization of an employee through the e-verify program creates a rebuttable presumption that an employer did not knowingly employ an unauthorized alien.

J. For the purposes of this section, an employer that establishes that it has complied in good faith with the requirements of 8 United States Code section 1324a(b) establishes an affirmative defense that the employer did not knowingly employ an unauthorized alien. An employer is considered to have complied with the requirements of 8 United States Code section 1324a(b), notwithstanding an isolated, sporadic or accidental technical or procedural failure to meet the requirements, if there is a good faith attempt to comply with the requirements.

K. IT IS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO A VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION THAT THE EMPLOYER WAS ENTRAPPED. TO CLAIM ENTRAPMENT, THE EMPLOYER MUST ADMIT BY THE EMPLOYER’S TESTIMONY OR OTHER EVIDENCE THE SUBSTANTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE VIOLATION. AN EMPLOYER WHO ASSERTS AN ENTRAPMENT DEFENSE HAS THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE FOLLOWING BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE:

1. THE IDEA OF COMMITTING THE VIOLATION STARTED WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS RATHER THAN WITH THE EMPLOYER.

2. THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS URGED AND INDUCED THE EMPLOYER TO COMMIT THE VIOLATION.

3. THE EMPLOYER WAS NOT PREDISPOSED TO COMMIT THE VIOLATION BEFORE THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS URGED AND INDUCED THE EMPLOYER TO COMMIT THE VIOLATION.

L. AN EMPLOYER DOES NOT ESTABLISH ENTRAPMENT IF THE EMPLOYER WAS PREDISPOSED TO VIOLATE SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION AND THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS MERELY PROVIDED THE EMPLOYER WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMIT THE VIOLATION. IT IS NOT ENTRAPMENT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS MERELY TO USE A RUSE OR TO CONCEAL THEIR IDENTITY. THE CONDUCT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND THEIR AGENTS MAY BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING IF AN EMPLOYER HAS PROVEN ENTRAPMENT.

Sec. 7. Section 23-212.01, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

23-212.01. Intentionally employing unauthorized aliens; prohibition; false and frivolous complaints; violation; classification; license suspension and revocation; affirmative defense

A. An employer shall not intentionally employ an unauthorized alien. If, in the case when an employer uses a contract, subcontract or other independent contractor agreement to obtain the labor of an alien in this state, the employer intentionally contracts with an unauthorized alien or with a person who employs or contracts with an unauthorized alien to perform the labor, the employer violates this subsection.

B. The attorney general shall prescribe a complaint form for a person to allege a violation of subsection A of this section. The complainant shall not be required to list the complainant’s social security number on the complaint form or to have the complaint form notarized. On receipt of a complaint on a prescribed complaint form that an employer allegedly intentionally employs an unauthorized alien, the attorney general or county attorney shall investigate whether the employer has violated subsection A of this section. If a complaint is received but is not submitted on a prescribed complaint form, the attorney general or county attorney may investigate whether the employer has violated subsection A of this section. This subsection shall not be construed to prohibit the filing of anonymous complaints that are not submitted on a prescribed complaint form. The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin. A complaint that is submitted to a county attorney shall be submitted to the county attorney in the county in which the alleged unauthorized alien is or was employed by the employer. The county sheriff or any other local law enforcement agency may assist in investigating a complaint. When investigating a complaint, the attorney general or county attorney shall verify the work authorization of the alleged unauthorized alien with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c). A state, county or local official shall not attempt to independently make a final determination on whether an alien is authorized to work in the United States. An alien’s immigration status or work authorization status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c). A person who knowingly files a false and frivolous complaint under this subsection is guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor.

C. If, after an investigation, the attorney general or county attorney determines that the complaint is not false and frivolous:

1. The attorney general or county attorney shall notify the United States immigration and customs enforcement of the unauthorized alien.

2. The attorney general or county attorney shall notify the local law enforcement agency of the unauthorized alien.

3. The attorney general shall notify the appropriate county attorney to bring an action pursuant to subsection D of this section if the complaint was originally filed with the attorney general.

E. For any action in superior court under this section, the court shall expedite the action, including assigning the hearing at the earliest practicable date.

F. On a finding of a violation of subsection A of this section:

1. For a first violation, as described in paragraph 3 of this subsection, the court shall:

(a) Order the employer to terminate the employment of all unauthorized aliens.

(b) Order the employer to be subject to a five year probationary period for the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work. During the probationary period the employer shall file quarterly reports in the form provided in section 23-722.01 with the county attorney of each new employee who is hired by the employer at the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work.

(c) Order the appropriate agencies to suspend all licenses described in subdivision (d) of this paragraph that are held by the employer for a minimum of ten days. The court shall base its decision on the length of the suspension under this subdivision on any evidence or information submitted to it during the action for a violation of this subsection and shall consider the following factors, if relevant:

(i) The number of unauthorized aliens employed by the employer.

(ii) Any prior misconduct by the employer.

(iii) The degree of harm resulting from the violation.

(iv) Whether the employer made good faith efforts to comply with any applicable requirements.

(v) The duration of the violation.

(vi) The role of the directors, officers or principals of the employer in the violation.

(vii) Any other factors the court deems appropriate.

(d) Order the employer to file a signed sworn affidavit with the county attorney. The affidavit shall state that the employer has terminated the employment of all unauthorized aliens in this state and that the employer will not intentionally or knowingly employ an unauthorized alien in this state. The court shall order the appropriate agencies to suspend all licenses subject to this subdivision that are held by the employer if the employer fails to file a signed sworn affidavit with the county attorney within three business days after the order is issued. All licenses that are suspended under this subdivision for failing to file a signed sworn affidavit shall remain suspended until the employer files a signed sworn affidavit with the county attorney. For the purposes of this subdivision, the licenses that are subject to suspension under this subdivision are all licenses that are held by the employer specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work. If the employer does not hold a license specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work, but a license is necessary to operate the employer’s business in general, the licenses that are subject to suspension under this subdivision are all licenses that are held by the employer at the employer’s primary place of business. On receipt of the court’s order and notwithstanding any other law, the appropriate agencies shall suspend the licenses according to the court’s order. The court shall send a copy of the court’s order to the attorney general and the attorney general shall maintain the copy pursuant to subsection G of this section.

3. The violation shall be considered:

(a) A first violation by an employer at a business location if the violation did not occur during a probationary period ordered by the court under this subsection or section 23-212, subsection F for that employer’s business location.

(b) A second violation by an employer at a business location if the violation occurred during a probationary period ordered by the court under this subsection or section 23-212, subsection F for that employer’s business location.

J. For the purposes of this section, an employer that establishes that it has complied in good faith with the requirements of 8 United States Code section 1324a(b) establishes an affirmative defense that the employer did not intentionally employ an unauthorized alien. An employer is considered to have complied with the requirements of 8 United States Code section 1324a(b), notwithstanding an isolated, sporadic or accidental technical or procedural failure to meet the requirements, if there is a good faith attempt to comply with the requirements.

1. THE IDEA OF COMMITTING THE VIOLATION STARTED WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS RATHER THAN WITH THE EMPLOYER.

2. THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS URGED AND INDUCED THE EMPLOYER TO COMMIT THE VIOLATION.

3. THE EMPLOYER WAS NOT PREDISPOSED TO COMMIT THE VIOLATION BEFORE THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS URGED AND INDUCED THE EMPLOYER TO COMMIT THE VIOLATION.

Sec. 8. Section 23-214, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

23-214. Verification of employment eligibility; e-verify program; economic development incentives; list of registered employers

A. After December 31, 2007, every employer, after hiring an employee, shall verify the employment eligibility of the employee through the e-verify program AND SHALL KEEP A RECORD OF THE VERIFICATION FOR THE DURATION OF THE

EMPLOYEE’S EMPLOYMENT OR AT LEAST THREE YEARS, WHICHEVER IS LONGER.

B. In addition to any other requirement for an employer to receive an economic development incentive from a government entity, the employer shall register with and participate in the e-verify program. Before receiving the economic development incentive, the employer shall provide proof to the government entity that the employer is registered with and is participating in the e-verify program. If the government entity determines that the employer is not complying with this subsection, the government entity shall notify the employer by certified mail of the government entity’s determination of noncompliance and the employer’s right to appeal the determination. On a final determination of noncompliance, the employer shall repay all monies received as an economic development incentive to the government entity within thirty days of the final determination. For the purposes of this subsection:

1. “Economic development incentive” means any grant, loan or performance-based incentive from any government entity that is awarded after September 30, 2008. Economic development incentive does not include any tax provision under title 42 or 43.

2. “Government entity” means this state and any political subdivision of this state that receives and uses tax revenues.

C. Every three months the attorney general shall request from the United States department of homeland security a list of employers from this state that are registered with the e-verify program. On receipt of the list of employers, the attorney general shall make the list available on the attorney general’s website.

Sec. 9. Section 28-3511, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

28-3511. Removal and immobilization or impoundment of vehicle

A. A peace officer shall cause the removal and either immobilization or impoundment of a vehicle if the peace officer determines that a person is driving the vehicle while any of the following applies:

1. The person’s driving privilege is suspended or revoked for any reason.

2. The person has not ever been issued a valid driver license or permit by this state and the person does not produce evidence of ever having a valid driver license or permit issued by another jurisdiction. This paragraph does not apply to the operation of an implement of husbandry.

3. The person is subject to an ignition interlock device requirement pursuant to chapter 4 of this title and the person is operating a vehicle without a functioning certified ignition interlock device. This paragraph does not apply to a person operating an employer’s vehicle or the operation of a vehicle due to a substantial emergency as defined in section 28-1464.

4. THE PERSON IS IN VIOLATION OF A CRIMINAL OFFENSE AND IS TRANSPORTING, MOVING, CONCEALING, HARBORING OR SHIELDING OR ATTEMPTING TO TRANSPORT, MOVE, CONCEAL, HARBOR OR SHIELD AN ALIEN IN THIS STATE IN A VEHICLE IF THE PERSON KNOWS OR RECKLESSLY DISREGARDS THE FACT THAT THE ALIEN HAS COME TO, HAS ENTERED OR REMAINS IN THE UNITED STATES IN VIOLATION OF LAW.

B. A peace officer shall cause the removal and impoundment of a vehicle if the peace officer determines that a person is driving the vehicle and if all of the following apply:

1. The person’s driving privilege is canceled, suspended or revoked for any reason or the person has not ever been issued a driver license or permit by this state and the person does not produce evidence of ever having a driver license or permit issued by another jurisdiction.

2. The person is not in compliance with the financial responsibility requirements of chapter 9, article 4 of this title.

3. The person is driving a vehicle that is involved in an accident that results in either property damage or injury to or death of another person.

C. Except as provided in subsection D of this section, while a peace officer has control of the vehicle the peace officer shall cause the removal and either immobilization or impoundment of the vehicle if the peace officer has probable cause to arrest the driver of the vehicle for a violation of section 4-244, paragraph 34 or section 28-1382 or 28-1383.

D. A peace officer shall not cause the removal and either the immobilization or impoundment of a vehicle pursuant to subsection C of this section if all of the following apply:

1. The peace officer determines that the vehicle is currently registered and that the driver or the vehicle is in compliance with the financial responsibility requirements of chapter 9, article 4 of this title.

2. The spouse of the driver is with the driver at the time of the arrest.

3. The peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the spouse of the driver:

(a) Has a valid driver license.

(b) Is not impaired by intoxicating liquor, any drug, a vapor releasing substance containing a toxic substance or any combination of liquor, drugs or vapor releasing substances.

4. The spouse notifies the peace officer that the spouse will drive the vehicle from the place of arrest to the driver’s home or other place of safety.

5. The spouse drives the vehicle as prescribed by paragraph 4 of this subsection.

E. Except as otherwise provided in this article, a vehicle that is removed and either immobilized or impounded pursuant to subsection A, B or C of this section shall be immobilized or impounded for thirty days. An insurance company does not have a duty to pay any benefits for charges or fees for immobilization or impoundment.

F. The owner of a vehicle that is removed and either immobilized or impounded pursuant to subsection A, B or C of this section, the spouse of the owner and each person identified on the department’s record with an interest in the vehicle shall be provided with an opportunity for an immobilization or poststorage hearing pursuant to section 28-3514.

Sec. 10. Title 41, chapter 12, article 2, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding section 41-1724, to read:

41-1724. Gang and immigration intelligence team enforcement mission fund

THE GANG AND IMMIGRATION INTELLIGENCE TEAM ENFORCEMENT MISSION FUND IS ESTABLISHED CONSISTING OF MONIES DEPOSITED PURSUANT TO SECTION 11-1051 AND MONIES APPROPRIATED BY THE LEGISLATURE. THE DEPARTMENT SHALL ADMINISTER THE FUND. MONIES IN THE FUND ARE SUBJECT TO LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATION AND SHALL BE USED FOR GANG AND IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT AND FOR COUNTY JAIL REIMBURSEMENT COSTS RELATING TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.

Sec. 11. Severability, implementation and construction

A. If a provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of the act that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this act are severable.

B. The terms of this act regarding immigration shall be construed to have the meanings given to them under federal immigration law.

C. This act shall be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens.

Sec. 12. Short title

This act may be cited as the “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act”.

Join Emptysuit On Twitter

Click On Link:
Goldman Sachs Lawsuit
Obama Gun Control
49 Of 50 States Have Lost Jobs Under Obama
I Won’t Vote For Obama Again
Dollar Losing Value Under Obama
Transcript: Rush Limbaugh “We Need To Defeat These Bastards”
The House Negro And The Field Negro
White America Hate Barack Obama
The Race Card
The Other 95%
Negro Used in the 2010 Census Form
Child Dies In House Fire, Aunt
Concerned About Her Food Stamps
Obama Eyeball E-Mail
Rush Limbaugh: Obama Is Destroying The Economy
Michelle Obama’s Chimp Faces
Second Amendment Activists Swarms DC
Obama ‘Buckwheat’
Hillary Clinton Warned America About Obama
Black People Don’t Like Black Conservatives
Somalia Use Portraits Of Obama For Target Practice