federal judge Judge orders protections reinstated for gray wolf in Montana and Idaho

HELENA, Mont. A federal judge on Thursday reinstated protections for wolves in Montana and Idaho, saying the government made a political decision in removing the protections from just two of the states where Northern Rocky Mountain wolves roam.The decision puts a halt to wolf hunts in Montana and Idaho planned for this fall. Montana wildlife regulators last month set the wolf-hunt quota at 186, more than doubling last year’s number, with the aim of reducing the state’s wolf population.U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy in Missoula said in his ruling that the entire region’s wolf population either must be listed as an endangered species or removed from the list, but the protections for the same population can’t be different for each state.

Last year, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service turned over wolf management to Montana and Idaho wildlife officials but left federal endangered species protections in place for wolves in Wyoming. There, legislators have approved a plan classifying wolves in most areas of the state outside the vicinity of Yellowstone National Park as predators that could be shot on site.

Molloy sided with the wildlife advocates who sued the federal government, ruling that Endangered Species Act does not allow the Fish and Wildlife Service to list only part of a species as endangered, and the federal agency must protect the entire Northern Rocky Mountain wolf population.”The rule delisting the gray wolf must be set aside because, though it may be a pragmatic solution to a difficult biological issue, it is not a legal one,” Molloy wrote.

Gray wolves were listed as endangered in 1974, but following a reintroduction program in the mid-1990s, there are now more than 1,700 in the Northern Rockies, which includes all of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, along with portions of Washington, Oregon and Utah.Defenders of Wildlife, the Greater Yellowstone Coalition and other wildlife advocates sued the federal government after the Fish and Wildlife Service decision in April 2009. They argued that the government’s decision would have set a precedent allowing the government to arbitrarily choose which animals should be protected and where.

Doug Honnold, an attorney for EarthJustice representing the plaintiffs, said he was gratified by the ruling, though he is sure there will be another chapter to the story.”For today, we are celebrating that the approach we thought was flatly illegal has been rejected. The troubling consequences for the Endangered Species Act have been averted and the wolf hunts are blocked,” Honnold said.

The plaintiffs don’t want wolves on the endangered species list forever, but they do want a solid plan in place, said Suzanne Stone, Northern Rockies representative for Defenders of Wildlife. The government’s plan was poorly devised and would have allowed too many wolves to be killed, she said.”We need a good wolf management and delisting that allows for a healthy interconnected wolf population,” Stone said.

Officials with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game declined to comment immediately after the ruling was released, saying they had yet to read the whole decision.The Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Commission has asked the state to appeal the ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, according to a statement by the state Fish, Wildlife and Parks agency.

Carolyn Sime, wolf program coordinator for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, said Montana has done everything it’s been asked to do in developing its state management program but now will have to apply federal law and regulations once more.”This puts a spotlight on Wyoming and seeing what can be done with Wyoming,” Sime said.The increase in the wolf population brought livestock losses for ranchers and competition for hunters for big game, such as elk. Molloy’s decision means ranchers in northwestern Montana will no longer be able to haze, harass or kill wolves that prey on their livestock, Sime said.

Wolves in southwestern Montana will revert to their “experimental population” status and ranchers there will still be able to kill wolves that attack their animals, she said.But a big blow is the loss of a hunting season, Sime said.”That’s clearly a management tool that we want to have in the toolbox. We think it’s legitimate and appropriate,” she said.Both Idaho and Montana held wolf hunts last year. Montana’s kill ended with 73 wolves and Idaho’s with 185.

Idaho’s congressional delegation released a statement that said Molloy’s ruling ignored the exploding population of wolves and that the state can manage wolves in a sustainable and responsible way.”We look for a more reasonable decision from a higher court,” said the statement from Sens. Mike Crapo and Jim Risch and Reps. Mike Simpson and Walt Minnick.At the end of 2009, there were at least 843 wolves in Idaho, 524 in Montana and 320 in Wyoming, with more in parts of Oregon and Washington state.

Thursday’s ruling could affect a lawsuit in which Wyoming charges the Fish and Wildlife Service had no reason to refuse to turn over management of gray wolves to Wyoming as it did to the other states. The case is before U.S. District Judge Alan B. Johnson of Cheyenne.”If the rule is vacated, there’s a question that Judge Johnson has to consider of whether or not there is something for him to decide,” said Bruce Salzburg, Wyoming attorney general.(AP)

federal appeals court has decided not to step into the controversy over Arizona's tough immigration law until November

PHOENIX A federal appeals court has decided not to step into the controversy over Arizona’s tough immigration law until November, leaving state officials to consider other steps they might take in the meantime.Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the law and appealed a ruling blocking its most controversial sections, said Friday she would consider changes to “tweak” the law to respond to the parts U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton faulted.

“Basically we believe (the law) is constitutional but she obviously pointed out faults that can possibly be fixed, and that’s what we would do,” Brewer told The Associated Press. Brewer said she’s talking to legislative leaders about the possibility of a special session, but said no specific changes had been identified.In her temporary injunction Wednesday, Bolton delayed the most contentious provisions of the law, including a section that required officers to check a person’s immigration status while enforcing other laws. Bolton indicated the federal government’s case has a good chance at succeeding in its argument that federal immigration law trumps state law.Brewer has said she’ll challenge the decision all the way to the Supreme Court.The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in an order late Friday that it will hold a hearing on Brewer’s challenge in the first week of November. Briefs from the state are due Aug. 26.

Brewer had asked for an expedited appeals process, with a hearing scheduled for the week of Sept. 13. State lawyers had argued that the appeal involves an issue of “significant importance” the state’s right to implement a law to address “the irreparable harm Arizona is suffering as a result of unchecked unlawful immigration.”The federal government countered that there was no need to expedite the matter because “the only effect of the district court’s injunction in this case is to preserve a status quo that has existed for a long period of time.”

Calls Friday night to Brewer spokesman Paul Senseman and Phoenix attorney John Bouma, who is defending the immigration law on the governor’s behalf, were not immediately returned.Democrats scoffed at Brewer’s desire to change the law, with a key House minority leader calling it laughable.”Why would we help her?” asked Rep. Kyrsten Sinema of Phoenix. “This bill is so flawed and clearly a federal judge agrees.”

House Speaker Kirk Adams said there would be little support among fellow Republicans to weaken the law.Attorneys have begun reviewing the statute to identify possible changes, he said: “It’s embryonic.”Sen. Russell Pearce, the law’s chief sponsor, said he would only back changes to make it stronger.

Even though the law’s critics scored a huge victory with the judge’s decision, passions among hundreds of immigrant rights supporters still flared at demonstrations near the federal courthouse in downtown Phoenix after the parts of the law that weren’t blocked took effect Thursday. At least 70 people have been arrested.The law’s supporters reacted too, and a fund set up to help defend the measure added $75,000 Wednesday alone, giving the state more than $1.6 million to get Bolton’s ruling overturned.Meanwhile, hundreds of emails and phone calls including some threats have poured into the courthouse.

Federal officials in charge of court security wouldn’t say whether anyone made a death threat against Bolton and wouldn’t provide specifics of the threats they were examining. But a majority of the emails and phone calls to the judge’s chambers and the court clerk’s office are from people who want to complain about her ruling, officials said.”We understand that people will vent and have a First Amendment right to express their dissatisfaction. We expect this,” said David Gonzales, the U.S. marshal for Arizona. “But we want to look at the people who go over the line.”

Eighty demonstrators against Arizona's tough-on-illegal-immigration policies trickled out of jails here Friday

Reporting from Phoenix Eighty demonstrators against Arizona’s tough-on-illegal-immigration policies trickled out of jails here Friday, as a local sheriff continued one of his controversial operations that critics contend targets Latinos.The protesters had been arrested Thursday, the day the state’s controversial immigration law took effect and Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio launched his 17th sweep against illegal immigrants.

On Friday, Arpaio announced that three illegal immigrants were arrested in the sweep. During such operations, his deputies stop people for sometimes minor violations and check their immigration status.A federal judge had barred most of the immigration law, SB 1070, from being implemented, but that didn’t stop hundreds of protesters from filling the streets and engaging in civil disobedience on Thursday. Twenty-three were arrested at Arpaio’s main downtown jail for blocking the entrance. Their demonstration forced the sheriff to delay his sweep for several hours.Activists on Friday boasted that they had slowed down the tough-talking Arpaio.”Families were not separated; the community was not terrorized,” said Carlos Garcia of civil rights group Puente, who was arrested Thursday.

Friday afternoon, several activists blocked the command center Arpaio set up for his sweep, leading to more arrests for civil disobedience. “They want to go to jail, so that’s where they’re going,” Arpaio said. “They want to keep coming, we’ll lock them up.”Also Friday, Gov. Jan Brewer said the Legislature might “tweak” SB 1070 when it convenes in January to address the federal judge’s concerns about the law.

For example, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton had singled out a provision requiring that every person arrested in the state be held until their immigration status is determined. Brewer’s lawyer had told the judge that the sentence was “inartfully” written and should apply only to suspected illegal immigrants.The law was already significantly narrowed once before in response to pressure from opponents. After Brewer signed the legislation in April, she accepted last-minute revisions from the Legislature. The law had required police to determine the immigration status of people they interact with whom they suspect are in the country illegally. Now it requires them to check only people they stop and believe are illegal immigrants. (Ap – The Los Angeles Times )

Arizona sheriff Arpaio forges ahead with aggressive immigration sweeps even after court ruling

PHOENIX Lost in the hoopla over Arizona’s immigration law is the fact that state and local authorities for years have been doing their own aggressive crackdowns in the busiest illegal gateway into the country.Nowhere in the U.S. is local enforcement more present than in metropolitan Phoenix, where Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio routinely carries out sweeps, some in Hispanic neighborhoods, to arrest illegal immigrants. The tactics have made him the undisputed poster boy for local immigration enforcement and the anger that so many authorities feel about the issue.

“It’s my job,” said Arpaio, standing beside a sheriff’s truck that has a number for an immigration hot line written on its side. “I have two state (immigration) laws that I am enforcing. It’s not federal, it’s state.”A ruling Wednesday by a federal judge put on hold parts of the new law that would have required officers to dig deeper into the fight against illegal immigration. Arizona says it was forced to act because the federal government isn’t doing its job to fight immigration.

The issue led to demonstrations across the country Thursday, including one directed at Arpaio in Phoenix in which protesters beat on the metal door of a jail and chanted, “Sheriff Joe, we are here. We will not live in fear.”Meanwhile, Gov. Jan Brewer’s lawyers went to court to overturn the judge’s ruling so they can fight back against what the Republican calls an “invasion” of illegal immigrants.

Ever since the main flow of illegal immigrants into the country shifted to Arizona a decade ago, state politicians and local police have been feeling pressure to confront the state’s border woes.In addition to Arpaio’s crackdowns, other efforts include a steady stream of busts by the state and local police of stash houses where smugglers hide illegal immigrants. The state attorney general has taken a money-wiring company to civil court on allegations that smugglers used their service to move money to Mexico. And a county south of Phoenix has its sheriff’s deputies patrol dangerous smuggling corridors.The Arizona Legislature have enacted a series of tough-on-immigration measures in recent years that culminated with the law signed by Brewer in April, catapulting the Republican to the national political stage.

But the king of local immigration enforcement is still Arpaio.Arpaio, a 78-year-old ex-federal drug agent who fashions himself as a modern-day John Wayne, launched his latest sweep Thursday afternoon, sending about 200 sheriff’s deputies and trained volunteers out across metro Phoenix to look for traffic violators who may be here illegally.

Deputy Bob Dalton and volunteer Heath Kowacz spotted a driver with a cracked windshield in a poor Phoenix neighborhood near a busy freeway. Dalton triggered the red and blue police lights and pulled over 28-year-old Alfredo Salas, who was born in Mexico but has lived in Phoenix with a resident alien card since 1993.

Dalton gave him a warning after Salas produced his license and registration and told him to get the windshield fixed.Salas, a married father of two who installs granite, told The Associated Press that he was treated well but he wondered whether he was pulled over because his truck is a Ford Lobo.

“It’s a Mexican truck so I don’t know if they saw that and said, ‘I wonder if he has papers or not,'” Salas said. “If that’s the case, it kind of gets me upset.”Sixty percent of the nearly 1,000 people arrested in the sweeps since early 2008 have been illegal immigrants. Thursday’s dragnet led to four arrests, but it wasn’t clear if any of them were illegal immigrants.Critics say deputies racially profile Hispanics. Arpaio says deputies approach people only when they have probable cause.

“Sheriff Joe Arpaio and some other folks there decided they can make a name for themselves in terms of the intensity of the efforts they’re using,” said Benjamin Johnson, executive director of the pro-immigrant Immigration Policy Center. “There’s no way to deny that. There are a lot of people getting caught up in these efforts.”The Justice Department launched an investigation of his office nearly 17 months ago over allegations of discrimination and unconstitutional searches and seizures. Although the department has declined to detail its investigation, Arpaio believes it centers on his sweeps.

Arpaio feels no reservations about continuing to push the sweeps, even after the federal government stripped his power to let 100 deputies make federal immigration arrests.Unable to make arrests under a federal statute, the sheriff instead relied on a nearly 5-year-old state law that prohibits immigrant smuggling. He has also raided 37 businesses in enforcing a state law that prohibits employers from knowingly hiring illegal immigrants.”I’m not going to brag,” Arpaio said. “Just look at the record. I’m doing what I feel is right for the people of Maricopa County.” (AP)

Facebook unrestrained amid NY ownership lawsuit

Facebook may continue business as usual while it fights a New York man’s claim he has a contract with founder Mark Zuckerberg that entitles him to 84 percent ownership of the world’s leading social networking site, a U.S. court heard on Tuesday.Paul Ceglia of Wellsville, New York, sued Zuckerberg and Facebook Inc last month claiming a 2003 contract with Zuckerberg to develop and design a website now entitled him to a majority stake in the privately-held company.

A New York State judge in Allegany County put a temporary restraining order on company asset transfers, but that order was suspended on June 30 by Judge Richard Arcara of federal court in Buffalo, New York.Arcara decided at a hearing on Tuesday that his ruling should remain in place, Facebook and a lawyer for Ceglia said.

“We have reached an agreement with respect to the progress of the next stage of the litigation,” said Ceglia’s lawyer, Terrence Connors.In a statement, the Palo Alto, California-based company said: “We are pleased that the court’s decision to stay the temporary restraining order remains in place and will continue to fight this frivolous claim.”The purported contract was dated April 2003 and ended in February 2004, according to Ceglia’s complaint, which had a two-page “‘Work for Hire’ Contract” attached.”He has contract. The contract is clean and clear,” Connors said by telephone after the hearing.Connors said he argued in court that Zuckerberg had signed the contract.

“The judge asked the question of the defense and they said they were looking into it,” Connors said. “I suspect that, if their client did not sign it, they would have made that clear.”In court documents, lawyers for Zuckerberg and Facebook wrote that Ceglia “sat on his allowed rights for over six years” and should not be permitted “to say that now, all of a sudden, he requires immediate relief.”The company, which has nearly 500 million users and 1,000 employees, argued the “purported contract itself is wrought with irregularities, inconsistencies and undefined terms.”Zuckerberg was a freshman at Harvard University in Massachusetts at the time of the purported contract.

Facebook’s court papers noted that last December a state prosecutor accused a wood-pellet fuel company that Ceglia owned with his wife of taking $200,000 from customers and failing to deliver products or refunds.The company is also defending a claim in federal court in Delaware that the most basic functions of its website infringe a patent held by a little-known company [ID:nN16102757].

Facebook ranks among the Web’s most popular sites, alongside Google Inc, Yahoo Inc and Microsoft Corp. Facebook is also one of the most closely watched Web companies by investors eager for a blockbuster initial public offering.The cases are Paul Ceglia v Zuckerberg & Facebook, New York State Supreme Court, Allegany County, No. 038798/2010 and Ceglia v Zuckerberg et al, U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, No. 10-00569.(Reuters)

Tokyo court convicts New Zealand anti-whaling activist

TOKYO A Tokyo court on Wednesday convicted a New Zealand activist of assault and obstructing Japanese whaling ships in the Antarctic Ocean, and sentenced him to a suspended prison term.Peter Bethune was also found guilty on three other charges: trespassing, vandalism and possession of a knife. He had pleaded guilty to all but the assault charge when his trial started in late May.The court sentenced Bethune to two years in prison, with the sentence suspended for five years – meaning he will not be jailed.The assault conviction was for throwing bottles of rancid butter at the whalers aboard their ship, including one that broke and gave several Japanese crew members chemical burns.

Bethune, 45, climbed onto the Shonan Maru 2 in February from a Jet Ski to confront its captain over the sinking of a protest vessel the previous month. He slashed a protective net with a knife, which the court said he possessed illegally, to enter the ship.The former activist for Sea Shepherd, a U.S.-based conservation group, was held on board the ship and arrested when it returned to Japan in March.

The group has been protesting Japan’s whaling for years, often engaging in scuffles with Japanese whalers. Sea Shepherd claims the research whaling mission, an allowed exception to an international whaling ban, is a cover for commercial hunting.Judge Takashi Tawada said Sea Shepherd has been engaged in “acts of sabotage” against the whalers, and that the use of such violence should not be tolerated.

Bethune “assaulted the crew members and interfered with their mission and the impact was extremely serious,” Tawada said. “His actions are based on his selfish beliefs.”However, Tawada said there was room for leniency given that Bethune had acknowledged what had happened, indicated that he wouldn’t return to similar protest activities and had no criminal record in Japan.Bethune did not make a statement in court Wednesday, but flashed a message written on a notebook to his lawyers saying he wanted to go home as soon as possible, one of his attorneys said.The lawyer, who spoke on condition of anonymity due to fear of attacks by ultra-rightwing activists, said Bethune would not appeal the ruling. Bethune is expected to be deported within days.

In Wellington, New Zealand Foreign Minister Murray McCully welcomed Bethune’s suspended sentence. Arrangements have been made through consular officials for his return home, McCully’s spokesman, James Funnell, told The Associated Press.”What a relief all right,” Bethune’s wife Sharon said of the ruling. She credited her husband with raising awareness of Japanese whaling, but added, “We don’t want him to be doing it again, though.”In his tearful closing statement June 10, Bethune apologized for the trouble and said he never intended to hurt anyone.During earlier trial sessions, Bethune said he just wanted to confront the ship’s captain and hand him a $3 million bill for the destruction of the Ady Gil, a Sea Shepherd vessel that sank during a collision in January.Outside the court Wednesday, about 30 right-wing protesters chanted and held up placards, including one that said, “Give Sea Shepherd terrorist capital punishment.”Shuhei Nishimura, one of the protesters, called the sentence “too lenient.”Sea Shepherd recently said it expelled Bethune because he violated its policy against carrying weapons. The group said he had a bow and arrows with him while he was aboard the Ady Gil, although he never used them.

Still, on Wednesday, the group called Bethune “a hero” and said his mission helped save hundreds of whales which were to be killed by Japan.Sea Shepherd also said it is free to return to the Antarctic, vowing to be “more effective next season.”Japan, Norway and Iceland hunt whales under exceptions to a 1986 moratorium by the International Whaling Commission. Japan’s whaling program involves large-scale expeditions to the Antarctic Ocean, while other whaling countries mostly stay along their own coasts.

Separately, Japan has said the leader of Sea Shepherd, Canadian citizen Paul Watson, 59, is now on an Interpol wanted list for allegedly ordering Bethune’s actions as part of the group’s disruption of Japanese whaling in the Antarctic. Watson was placed on the Interpol list in late June at the request of Japan, which accuses his group of risking whalers’ lives during their expedition.(AP)

Az Promises of Fairness ''Ring Hollow to Many Latinos''

Randal Archibold, who has led the paper’s slanted, whitewashed coverage of Arizona’s fierce illegal immigration fight, again focused the feelings of the minority, not the majority of Americans, talking to Latinos in Phoenix for Friday’s “Arizona Law Is Stoking Unease Among Latinos.” His concluding verdict: “many Latinos remain unconvinced.”Among those Archibold interviewed was someone who “spray painted himself white and wrote on his body, ‘Am I reasonably suspicious?'” (Monica Almeida captured the image for the Times.) Who could fail to be swayed by such an argument?  When Gov. Jan Brewer signed Arizona’s new immigration enforcement law, giving police departments broad power to make immigration checks, she sought to allay concerns from Hispanic citizens and legal residents that they would be singled out for scrutiny.

“We have to trust our law enforcement,” Ms. Brewer said. “It’s simple reality. Police officers are going to be respectful. They understand what their jobs are. They’ve taken an oath, and racial profiling isn’t legal.”Those words ring hollow to many Latinos, including Jesus Ruiz, 25, a college student in Mesa, Ariz., who, like many Latinos here, believes that all too often the police view them suspiciously and single them out for what they consider questionable stops or harassment.

In one stop in 2004, Mr. Ruiz said, an officer pulled him over for speeding 10 miles over the limit and went on to question him on where he was going to school and whether he lived with his parents, and finally asked for his Social Security number.“I was thinking, is he supposed to be asking me for that and all these questions for a speeding ticket?” said Mr. Ruiz, who spray painted himself white and wrote on his body, “Am I reasonably suspicious?” at a recent protest against the new law, which goes into effect in late July.But it is not just young people.

Archibold then told an anecdote from a Phoenix judge who has been pulled over twice for traffic infractions, but not given a ticket, which somehow adds up to…something or other.Judge Jose Padilla of Maricopa County Superior Court in Phoenix, says that twice since he became a judge in 2006, the police have pulled him over, alleging minor traffic infractions. Even though Judge Padilla, 60, did not disclose his occupation, he ended up not receiving a ticket. He said his complaints to the police department led to sensitivity training for the officers.

Though the law isn’t even being enforced yet, Archibold managed to collect reports of immigrant harassment:

Already, he said, there are anecdotal reports that some police departments in the state are asking people for their papers. He said his department had received a picture of a patrol car near a Border Patrol vehicle, as if proximity proved that officers were already collaborating to carry out the law.Between rehashing recent incidents showing “tensions between law enforcement and some Latinos” in Arizona, talk of lawsuits and “roundups” of illegals, and a cameo by Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Archibold didn’t get to any supporters of the law (who are the clear majority both in Arizona and nationwide) until paragraph 31 out of 37).

Still, many Arizonans who support the law believe racial profiling concerns are overblown or a smokescreen to hide a belief that borders should be wide open.Archibold concluded with this less than shocking statement: “But many Latinos remain unconvinced.”A sidebar article by Larry Rohter (a fiercely pro-Obama reporter from the 2008 campaign) offered the less than earth-shattering news that some leftist musicians are boycotting Arizona in protest of the law, led by Zach de la Rocha of Rage Against the Machine.

Denise's New in the law and fined $ 435 for taking his son's facebook account expert

Facebook made the news. A mother from Arkansas, United States, the court adjudged guilty of child abuse. The mother named Denise New (30 years) was then sentenced to jail, but switch to a criminal trial judge. Mother and child are in session for two hours in the District Court of Clark County, Arkansas, that they previously had good relations. But their relationship deteriorated late spring this year.

Facebook has become the trigger bigger fights when her son called home visit to New Lane. The mother asked her son to return a key to the house, but the boy refused. The mother was acting tough, prohibits 17-year-old son into the house to take his belongings.

One of them held by the mother is a Facebook account for her son. She then posted a number of things vulgar. One of them, “The only mistake I made was to have a child.” Then the mother, as if given a position as his son, wrote “Check this one – I went to the house of mother and started arguing and called police. She (the mother – red) nearly went to prison. Cool is not it? Ha, ha, ha. ”

The mother later admitted to the judge Randy Hill that he put it for his son not to close her account properly. The mother was then also change the account password so that the child can not access it anymore. The judge also found the mother to send short messages to his son with a vulgarity. The judge also considered that the mother was too much action. “It’s really inappropriate.”

The judge then decided on Thursday, May 27, 2010 hearing that, she must pay a fine New U.S. $ 435 and attend anger management and parenting classes in lieu of imprisonment of 30 days. In addition, she also instructed her son not be met during the training period.

Denise’s attorney, Justin Hurst, said it would discuss the possibility of appeal against this decision. Denise himself to the media, said his son had been living with his grandmother since five years earlier, after he passed through a difficult divorce. She said the tension with his son happened because he was worried about the behavior of children and friends children. He became concerned because he read on Facebook that Lane was driving his son with a high speed because of a crush on a girl.

illegal immigrant college student hopes case helps reform

ATLANTA When Jessica Colotl, an illegal immigrant college student, got arrested for a minor traffic violation at her suburban Atlanta campus, she became an accidental poster child for immigration reform.On Friday, after getting arrested and released from detention for the second time in just over a month, she told reporters at a news conference she hopes her ordeal can help persuade leaders to work for an overhaul of the country’s immigration laws.

“I just hope for the best and I hope that something positive comes out of this because we really need a reform to fix this messed up system,” the 21-year-old told reporters inside a shopping center that caters to metro Atlanta’s growing community of Hispanic immigrants. Colotl, who came close to deportation after the traffic arrest, looked overwhelmed by the crush of reporters shouting questions at her.Colotl is among hundreds of thousands of young people who have been brought into the U.S. illegally by their parents. She was 11 when her parents crossed the border with her from Mexico. Eventually, she graduated from high school in Georgia and entered Kennesaw State University in the fall of 2006. A sorority member who dreams of becoming lawyer, she was set to graduate with a degree in political science this fall.

Her first arrest came on March 30, the day after getting pulled over by university police for a minor traffic violation. She was charged with driving without a license and impeding the flow of traffic.Then, the Cobb County Sheriff’s Office turned her over to officials with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, who sent her to a detention center in Alabama. After lobbying by Kennesaw State officials and her sorority sisters, ICE released Colotl last week. Federal officials deferred action on her case for a year, allowing her to complete her classes.

But Cobb County Sheriff Neil Warren obtained a new warrant for her arrest on Wednesday, saying she lied about her address when she was booked into jail following her initial arrest. Making a false statement to law enforcement is a felony under Georgia law.Colotl turned herself in Friday morning and was released on $2,500 bond, according to sheriff’s office records.

Her criminal defense lawyer, Chris Taylor, said Friday that his client’s case is a perfect example of why U.S. immigration law needs reform.”Jessica may not have the documents that show that she’s an American citizen, but she’s an American,” Taylor said. “She’s an American in her heart because she believes in the values of this country.”U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which granted the deferral on her case last week, decided not to detain her again following Friday’s arrest, the agency said in a statement.

Taylor said he believes there is no merit to the sheriff’s charge that Colotl gave an incorrect address. The address she gave is a former address and her auto insurance and car registration still list it, he said. She also gave her current address to immigration officials and the sheriff’s office had access to that information, he said.Warren did not return calls Friday seeking comment and a spokeswoman for his office referred questions to a statement released Thursday. In it, the sheriff said Colotl knew she was in the country illegally and “further complicated her situation with her blatant disregard for Georgia Law by giving false information.”

The deferred action on Colotl’s case does not imply legal status but does authorize her to seek a work permit, ICE said.Colotl’s immigration lawyer, Charles Kuck, said he intends to seek an extension of that deferred status.

If Colotl is convicted on the felony charge of making a false statement, it will be virtually impossible to get a judge to agree to extend the deferral, Kuck said. But he said he is almost positive that the district attorney will dismiss those charges.Cobb County District Attorney Pat Head did not immediately return a call Friday seeking comment.Colotl is evaluating whether to return to Kennesaw State, but said she is certain she will graduate from college.

“I really believe that something positive should come out of this, probably an immigration reform or at least the DREAM Act,” she said.The DREAM Act, or Development Relief and Education for Alien Minors, would apply to illegal immigrants who arrived in the U.S. before the age of 16, have a high school diploma and have shown high moral character, among other requirements. The bill has been introduced many times in Congress but has yet to make it through.

It’s unclear how many people would qualify under the most recent version of the act, which could be folded into a larger immigration reform bill or pushed on its own.Both Taylor and Kuck are representing Colotl without charge.

Colotl and her lawyers were flanked by about a dozen representatives from civil liberties and immigrant rights groups at Friday’s news conference. They called for ICE to revoke the Cobb County Sheriff’s Office’s participation in a program known as 287(g), which allows local law enforcement agents to help enforce federal immigration laws.

“We are calling for an immediate termination of the 287(g) agreement in Cobb County,” said Azadeh Shahshahani of the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, adding that her office has contacted the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, and the U.S. Department of Justice, asking them to look into Cobb County’s use of the program.DHS spokesman Matt Chandler declined to comment and U.S. DOJ did not immediately return a call seeking comment late Friday. (AP)

Arizona's referendum drives targeting new law dropped

PHOENIX The two proposed referendum drives challenging Arizona’s new sweeping law targeting illegal immigration are being abandoned, organizers said Monday. Andrew Chavez, a professional petition circulator involved in one of the efforts, said its backers pulled the plug after concluding they might not be able to time their petition filings in such a way as to put the law on hold pending a 2012 public vote.Jon Garrido, the chief organizer of the other drive, attributed its end to a belief that the law would have been subject to legal protections under Arizona’s Constitution if approved by Arizona voters.

The law takes effect July 29 unless implementation is blocked by court injunctions requested under at least three of the four pending legal challenges already filed by an Hispanic clergy group, police officers and other individuals.Its provisions include requiring that police enforcing another law must question a person about his or her immigration status if there is “reasonable suspicion” that the person is in the United States illegally. It also makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally.

Critics have said the law will result in racial profiling of Hispanics. Supporters deny that and say the law will pressure illegal immigrants to leave the country on their own.

Chavez said his clients, whom he would not identify, launched the effort in the belief that they could put the law on hold until 2012 by not filing petition signatures until it was too late for state elections officials to place a referendum on the November ballot.

However, the backers decided over the weekend to end the referendum campaign when they concluded there still might be a November vote, not giving them enough time to be confident about being able to wage a successful campaign against the law, Chavez said.

The normal deadline for ballot questions is July 1, after which the printing of November ballots and other election preparations typically get under way. The Secretary of State’s Office previously acknowledged that a down-to-the-wire referendum filing by this year’s July 28 deadline might not give officials enough time to get it on the November ballot. However, the office also said it would depend on circumstances at the time.

Garrido, the chief organizer of the second referendum drive, said its backers abandoned it after getting legal advice that Arizona’s constitutional protections for voter-approved ballot measures would have applied to the law if approved by voters.Secretary of State’s spokesman Matt Benson said Monday the office also believes that the constitutional limitations on possible legislative action would have applied to the law if voters approved it.

The constitutional provisions bar the Legislature from repealing a voter-approved law and only allow legislative changes that further the intent of the original law. Also, any changes must be approved by three-quarters votes of both the House and Senate.

The four legal challenges filed so far in U.S. District Court in Phoenix have been randomly assigned to different judges. Several major civil-rights groups are expected to file another challenge as early as this week.No hearings have been set yet on the lawsuits, which likely will be consolidated into one case before a single judge. That judge would then set a schedule for consideration of the plaintiffs’ requests for injunctions and rulings to strike down the law.(AP)