For Immediate Release

November 9, 2010 - Washington D.C. - Today, the Immigration Policy Center releases a special report examining ICE's Enforcement Priorities and the Factors That Undermine Them, by Michele Waslin, Ph.D. The paper reviews the steps that ICE has taken in recent months to clarify its enforcement priorities and how those priorities are playing out nationally and in local communities.

"As part of its strategy to gain support for comprehensive immigration reform, the administration has continually touted its enforcement accomplishments. In fact, over the last two years, the Obama administration has committed itself to a full-court press to demonstrate how committed the administration is to removing criminals and others who remain in the country without proper documentation.They have continued to use the enforcement programs of the previous administration, including partnering with state and local law enforcement agencies to identify, detain, and deport immigrants. However, in doing so, they have lost the ability to fully control their own enforcement priorities and enforcement outcomes, and the results have demonstrated that the state and local partners are not necessarily committed to the same priorities."

To view the report, in its entirety see:

* ICE's Enforcement Priorities and the Factors that Undermine Them, by Michele Waslin, Ph.D. (IPC Special Report, November 9, 2010)

###
 
For more information contact Wendy Sefsaf at wsefsaf@immcouncil.org or 202-507-7524.

FOLLOW US:

The Immigration Policy Center (IPC), established in 2003, is the policy arm of the American Immigration Council. IPC's mission is to shape a rational national conversation on immigration and immigrant integration. Through its research and analysis, IPC provides policymakers, the media, and the general public with accurate information about the role of immigrants and immigration policy on U.S. society. IPC reports and materials are widely disseminated and relied upon by press and policy makers. IPC staff regularly serves as experts to leaders on Capitol Hill, opinion-makers and the media. IPC is a non-partisan organization that neither supports nor opposes any political party or candidate for office.

A division of the American Immigration Council.

Visit our website at www.immigrationpolicy.org.

For Immediate Release

November 8, 2010 - Washington D.C. - Late last week, the Legal Action Center of the American Immigration Council (LAC), together with the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), filed an amicus brief arguing that an H-1B employee should not face arrest, detention or deportation after his initial period of admission expires if a pending extension request remains under review. The brief, filed in federal district court in Connecticut, maintains that H-1B employers who follow the law should not lose valuable employees because of widespread delays at immigration processing centers."Both existing law and common sense dictate that the government cannot sit on an employer's H-1B extension request and then arrest the employee due to its own processing delays," said Melissa Crow, director of the Legal Action Center.

The LAC filed the brief on behalf of a Lebanese national represented by the Worker and Immigrant Rights Advocacy Clinic at Yale Law School and the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund.  The plaintiff was gainfully employed when his employer requested an H-1B extension in early 2004, more than a month before the deadline.Though his employer paid a $1,000 "premium processing" fee to obtain a decision within fifteen business days, the government neither approved nor denied the application and refused to respond to requests for information.Nearly seven months after the extension request was filed, but before DHS had decided it, immigration agents arrested the plaintiff for allegedly "overstaying" his visa.

While federal law permits H-1B employees to remain in the United States for up to six years, the government grants visas for only three years at a time. Typically, the government may seek to remove noncitizens who overstay a temporary visa. But a federal regulation specifically permits an H-1B employee to continue working for up to 240 days after his initial period of admission expires so long as his employer filed an extension request before that period ended.

In the amicus brief, LAC and AILA argue that the automatic extension of work authorization should prevent the government from arresting H-1B employees while their employers' extension requests remain pending. With supportive declarations from three prominent companies that rely on H-1B workers, the brief further argues that subjecting noncitizens in the plaintiff's position to arrest would threaten to disrupt key sectors of the U.S. economy and undermine the goals of the H-1B program. 

 ###

For more information contact Wendy Sefsaf at 202-507-7524 or wsefsaf@immcouncil.org

___________________________________________________________________________

The Legal Action Center strives to increase the accountability of government agencies that administer the immigration laws and to ensure these laws are interpreted and implemented in a way that honors fundamental constitutional and human rights. The LAC engages in impact litigation, appears as amicus curiae (friend of the court) before administrative tribunals and federal courts in significant immigration cases on targeted legal issues, and has long worked to protect the right to counsel for noncitizens facing removal from the United States.

For Immediate Release

October 7, 2010

Washington D.C. - In a continuing effort to promote greater federal court oversight of immigration decision-making, the American Immigration Council's Legal Action Center (LAC) recently submitted amicus (friend of the court) briefs in two cases involving motions to reopen. For noncitizens facing removal from the United States, a motion to reopen (an opportunity to present new evidence in a case) may be the last and only way to pursue their claims for lawful residency in the United States. Failure to grant such a motion might prevent anyone - from an asylum seeker to a U.S. citizen's family member - from presenting new evidence that could prevent deportation.  Yet, although the federal courts are the last chance for redress, they frequently refuse to hear claims that immigration courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals abuse their discretion when they deny motions to reopen.

The LAC argument is based on the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Kucana v. Holder that the Board of Immigration Appeals cannot shield its decisions from judicial review by labeling these decisions "discretionary." Only Congress can limit court review of motions to reopen, and it has not done so.

Given the gravity of removal from the United States, the high volume of immigration court cases, and the reality that most noncitizens do not have lawyers (only 39% of noncitizens were represented in immigration court in 2009), federal court oversight is critical to ensure due process.  For an immigration system that is widely understood to be plagued with errors, judicial checks and balances are especially critical.

The LAC's work on these cases builds on their successes in other oversight cases.  Last month, for example, the LAC convinced the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to withdraw a precedent-setting decision that would have prevented federal courts from hearing cases challenging government delays in adjudicating immigration applications.
###

For more information contact Wendy Sefsaf at 202-507-7524 or wsefsaf@immcouncil.org

The Legal Action Center strives to increase the accountability of government agencies that administer the immigration laws and to ensure these laws are interpreted and implemented in a way that honors fundamental constitutional and human rights. The LAC engages in impact litigation, appears as amicus curiae (friend of the court) before administrative tribunals and federal courts in significant immigration cases on targeted legal issues, and has long worked to protect the right to counsel for noncitizens facing removal from the United States

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

September 30, 2010

New York, NY - Sports Illustrated announced the winners of the 2011 contest for it's Kids Reporter team.   Each year, Sports Illustrated conducts a contest looking for the most talented young reporters throughout the country.  This year twelve young students were chosen from diverse areas the United States.  Each contestant were required to submit videos and written material.  ((The initial group of contestants consisting of almost 2,000 was reduced to 119 based on the original entries. SI Kids then narrowed the finalists down from 119 to 17)).  The 17 finalists were asked to submit a video explaining "Why I Want to be a Kid Reporter."  From this group, the 12 winners were chosen.

In the past year, SI's Kid Reporters have gone to the NFL Draft, the Major League Baseball All-Star Game, tennis’s U.S. Open, and a photo shoot with the top NBA rookies. (Check out their work at SIKIDS.com/KidReporter.)

This year, Adam Apsan, a local Bergen county student at Eric S. Smith Middle School in Ramsey, NJ, was chosen and will become an integral part of the Sports Illustrated Kids Reporter Team for 2011.  As Adam put it " Now that I am an official Sports Illustrated Kid Reporter, I hope to take my first steps toward my ultimate goal of becoming a movie producer." Adam, however, is not new to reporting.  In fact since the age of 12 he has been working as the junior reporter for www.vejatv.com, a media-sharing site that has its own daily news and show called “America Legal.” Vejatv.com is considered to be the preeminent webTV for the Brazilians living in the United States.  Adam as a member of the ”America Legal Show” has interviewed many interesting people such as Tony Kanaan, a Brazilian race car who won the 2004 Indy Racing League Indy Car, Heloisa Alves, Miss Brasil USA 2007, Felix Augustin, the Ambassador of Haiti, Chief of Police of Newark, NJ, Mayor JM Bober, the mayor of Hollywood Florida, Hon. Mayor Poitier, of Deerfield Beach, George Moreira at Red Bull soccer team's final game at Giants Stadium; just to name a few.

In 2009 Adam won the Golden Medal at the Camp Woodward's Film Premiere. The event occurred at the Woodward Camp for Extreme Sport, Woodward Pennsylvania. He interviews the Pro's of Xtreme sports and created a unique video. Jamie Bestwick, the Best BMX vert player in the world, interviewed Adam and he interviewed others. See the video.

This summer Adam attended the New York Film Academy in New York City. There he wrote and starred in his first short film called Detention Getaway. Two students attempt to get out of school detention. See the video.

Joao Vianna, executive director of the site vejatv.com, commented that “when I met Adam he was only 12 years old, but had a great command of the English language and had the ability to speak to people of all ages on most any topic.  At a Miss Brasil USA show, we discovered that many of the young women could not speak Portuguese correctly and preferred to be interviewed in English.  Looking around, I realized that I had no English-speaking reporters at the event.  Taking a shot in the dark, I asked Adam if he would like to try an interview with a contestant.  Adam accepted the challenge and interviewed some ten contestants that night.  The rest is history.  Adam has been our junior reporter since that day.  He makes a job that is very stressful look very easy.  He requires little preparation and is capable of creating new questions based on the answers given.  We, at vejatv.com, are very pleased that Adam’s talents have been discovered.  At Sports Illustrated I believe, Adam will blossom and grow to become a professional reporter.”

Adam commented that "when I first began interviewing I was quite nervous and did not listen to answers given, but now, from the answers, I am able to create new questions to gain a better understanding of who is the person being interviewed.  By doing this I have been gaining a greater perspective on the different careers and future a student can have.  All a student he has to do is believe that he can do it and if he gives his best effort, he will succeed."

--------------------------------

For more information contact Joao Vianna at Vejatv.com - 201-248-3935

• The DREAM Act: Creating Opportunities for Immigrant Students and Supporting the U.S. Economy (IPC Fact Check, July 2010)


• Essential to the Fight: Immigrants in the Military (IPC Special Report, November, 2009)


• IPC DREAM Act Resource Page
  

PRESS RELEASE

September 5, 2010

New York, NY - XO TRAVEL CONSULTANTS, LTD.  has been named among the WORLD’S TOP WINE TOURS by Travel & Leisure Magazine.

According to wine writer Bruce Schoenfield, on a well-crafted wine tour “it’s possible to gain entrée to the world’s most renowned producers, eat memorable meals, travel in sumptuous luxury, immerse yourself in local culture…all on the same trip.”

Named as the Best for Following a True Insider, Travel & Leisure cites 2 exceptional weeklong XO Travel Burgundy wine experiences for small groups of serious wine enthusiasts, wine collectors and food & wine professionals.  The June tour - Burgundy From A to Z - is hosted by the British Master of Wine and Burgundy expert Clive Coates.  The July program – The Village Master Class Series, focusing exclusively on a different important Burgundy wine appellation each year - is led by Allen (Burghound) Meadows, considered America’s most important Burgundy wine critic.  Both programs are intense but not intimidating and include comprehensive vineyard visits and tastings with the most prestigious Burgundy producers as well as intimate winemaker dinners.

For over 20 years, XO Travel Consultants has created incomparable food & wine tours to the world's greatest wine regions from France , Italy, Spain and Germany to Australia,  New Zealand, Argentina, Chile and South Africa, to emerging wine regions like Croatia, Hungary, Morocco, Turkey and China.  ((Our tours,  led by notable wine experts, highlight in depth tastings with the top winemakers, dining at Michelin-starred restaurants and local establishments)) with excellent regional cuisines and wine lists, as well as visits to local artisans and bustling markets. 

Who We Are

PATRICIA NICHOLLS, Managing Director. British-born, a graduate of Kings College, London University, and the University of Salamanca, Spain, she has accumulated 25 years' experience in the travel industry and she speaks five languages fluently. She has worked professionally managing programs worldwide for a number of large US Tour Operators before starting XO Travel Consultants in 1987. She creates our exclusive XO Travel itineraries, personally researching and visiting all the tour destinations before their inclusion in any itinerary. Over the years she has developed a wide range of friendships and contacts throughout the food and wine world. She is a member of IACP.

JAMES HORWITZ, President. A graduate of the University of Pennsylvania, he has lived in Paris and London and the south of France and traveled the world for many years as a freelance journalist and writer, contributing to many international publications. He is a longtime wine enthusiast with numerous contacts in the wine world, and is a New York restaurant wine director and wine consultant.

Our Tour Experts

James Lawther M.W. - Bordeaux, Languedoc, Côtes du Rhône & Provence. James has been a Master of Wine for over 15 years, and is a well-known contributing editor to Decanter Magazine. He lives with his family near Bordeaux and hosts special wine tastings for XO Travel throughout Southern France.

Jacqueline Brugnon Lategan - South Africa & French Riviera. After more than 15 years in the South African wine trade and importing premium European wines, French-born Jacqueline   handles XO Travel cruise programs, golf and gastronomy itineraries and escorts our popular trips to Southern Africa.

Gunda Dignac - Bordeaux & Spain. A qualified oenologist, with unique knowledge of the vineyards of Bordeaux, Gunda conducts many tours for us in the South West of France and Spain.

Françoise Kinoo - France, Paris. Françoise has been a licensed professional guide in Paris for many years and is also a noted specialist in the field of the Impressionists. With a home in the South West of France, she is a walking encyclopedia on French regional gastronomy.

André Lilty - Western Europe. André is considered one of the most experienced Tour Managers in Europe today, and has been working with us since XO Travel began in 1987. He has a passion for European history and culture and fine Bordeaux wines. He maintains homes in Paris and Arcachon, on the French Atlantic coast.

Julia Maxlow-Tomlinson - Italy & British Isles. Julia has escorted our garden tours of the British Isles to rave reviews from all our clients. She also accompanies our Italian food and wine tours, as she is also fluent in Italian and knows the country intimately.

Brendan Moore - Burgundy, Beaujolais, Southern France. Brendan has lived in Burgundy with his family for many years and became a free-lance guide after several years as export manager at Domaine Laroche in Chablis. He is an enthusiastic fan of pinot noir and chardonnay, with an insider's unrivalled knowledge of the region.

XO Travel Consultants will continue to create and offer to our XO Travellers The World's Top Wine Tours.

James Horwitz
President
XO Travel Consultants
38 West 32nd Street,  Suite 1009
New York, NY  10001
tel: 212-947-5530
fax:  212-971-0924
email:  xotravelusa@cs.com
web:  www.xotravelconsultants.com

They've moved into a different kind of limbo. Deportations have been deferred. Instead, undocumented students nabbed by ICE get a year's reprieve.

They ought to be issued passports stamped in the Republic of Netherworld.

Student reprieves come despite a deportation frenzy by the Obama administration, which booted out some 389,000 undocumented immigrants last year. Immigration and Customs Enforcement won't call this an official change in immigration policy. Mindful of an anti-immigrant backlash, ICE insists this is no more than a reordering of priorities. The agency wants to focus its resources on jettisoning illegal immigrants who have criminal records.

At least, deferments put a temporary stop to a depressing string of news stories featuring sympathetic students, good kids, raised and educated in the United States, faced with deportation to places beyond their memories.

This may be the closest we get to immigration reform in 2010. While the Tea Party reaches of our polarized country rail about job-stealing illegal immigrants, others are deeply bothered by the arrest of students like Leslie Cocche, a 19-year-old criminal-justice major at Miami-Dade College stopped by an ICE agent at the Fort Lauderdale Tri-Rail station in March, tossed into jail for 11 days and faced with deportation. They struggle to find the economic logic behind the detention of Eric Balderas, the 19-year-old Harvard microbiology student, busted in June and faced with deportation to Mexico.

Both students were rescued by reprieves. Other undocumented students are not exactly dancing in the streets. "We're still in limbo," said Gaby Pacheco, one of four young students, three of them undocumented, who walked a thousand miles from Miami to Washington, D.C., earlier this year to protest the deportation of students who, like her, had nothing to do with their parents' decision to raise them in the United States. "It [a reprieve] doesn't give students anything safe. It doesn't give them anything concrete," Pacheco said.

Cheryl Little, executive director of the Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center, said the deferments are apparently issued "on a case-by-case basis," not through a blanket policy. She hopes students aren't planning to get themselves arrested by ICE to take advantage of an amorphous new reprieve policy. "For these kids, this sounds like great news," she said. "I'm not necessarily sure it is."

Pacheco and other undocumented students have been campaigning for congressional passage of the Dream Act, which would grant law-abiding undocumented immigrants green cards and a chance at college. The Dream Act makes economic sense -- America has already paid to educate these kids, many of them from kindergarten through high school. If nothing else, it seems financially foolish to banish that investment -- $90,000 to $100,000 or more for each student -- to Mexico or Brazil or Colombia.

"I think the Dream Act could pass this year," Pacheco insisted. But in an election year aflame with anti-immigrant sentiment, just the cessation of student deportations will be characterized by the Fox News set as a radical maneuver by Obama around federal law.

An one-year deferment will get these kids past this election year's xenophobia. Maybe, in 2011, when the mean talk subsides, we'll find a way to get them out of limbo.

bellinghamherald.com  via Jornal.us

Read more: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2010/08/13/1564564/commentary-immigration-debate.html#ixzz0xhY1nK5Z

The first Brazilian Exposition of New England will show in September of 2010, and will be sponsored by SR Global Enterprises, the same company that created the popular Yellow book Pocket Reference (Guide to American, Hispanic and Brazilian businesses) which is located in the Boston area. SR Global Enterprises also successfully promotes business networking and publicity as well as other events to the region, with the biggest concentration of Brazilian and South American individuals within the New England area.

The first Brazilian Exposition, is scheduled to appear in September of 2010, in the city of Worcester, at the DCU Center, it will showcase the most fascinating and complete events involving information about Brazil and Brazilian products, the booths will be full of excitement, and will have plenty of room to promote your products. Various programs and events will honor the culture, history, and reasons by which entertainment is part of the everyday life of its people.

The exhibition is going to provide a view for business, and entrepreneurs will develop networking skills, the public will have contact with one of the richest cultures of South America. Visitors will discover Brazil in the fastest way ever seen.

The exposition did not leave out the children, activities such as, pogo sticks to face painting will be part of the show, and for the adults shows of Brazilian Music Popular and percussion, circles of capoeira, fashion shows, seminars, and a world of attractions involving the four regions of Brazil will be exposed.

Become part of history. You need to confirm your reservation.

The Exposition Includes:

• SEMINARS
• FASHION SHOWS
• ENTERTAINMENT
• FOOD AND BEVERAGES
• LITERARY CAFÉ
• CHILDREN SHOWS AND EVENTS
• BOOTHS (DISCOVER BRAZIL)

The Arizona Republic : For most of us, legalese is a foreign language. That makes it doubly difficult when we try to discern both the complexities of Senate Bill 1070 and the judicial reasoning behind U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton's decision last Wednesday to block key provisions of the immigration-enforcement law from going into effect.

With that in mind, The Arizona Republic sought the assistance of two Phoenix attorneys, Timothy Berg and Mark Bolton (no relation to Judge Bolton), of Fennemore Craig. Hopefully, their translation of the judge's ruling will better inform Arizonans and others about a law that has stirred a national debate and protests.

• Interactive version of analysis

On July 6, the United States filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Arizona Senate Bill 1070. The United States requested that the court enjoin (i.e., block or stop) portions of the law from taking effect until the court could rule on the federal government's lawsuit.

The United States argued that under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the power to regulate immigration belongs exclusively to the federal government, and that SB 1070 conflicts with federal immigration policy and is therefore pre-empted by federal law.

On Wednesday, the day before SB 1070 was to become law, Judge Susan Bolton enjoined several key parts of the law from taking effect pending a final determination on the United States' lawsuit. Gov. Jan Brewer has already appealed Bolton's order to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and indicated that she would appeal the 9th Circuit's decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, if necessary.

The 9th Circuit is not likely to rule on Brewer's appeal until next year, meaning the Supreme Court may not rule on the case until sometime in 2012.

Bolton conducted a section-by-section review of the bill and enjoined the four sections that she concluded the United States had a probability of successfully challenging.

What follows is an analysis of the judge's order.

- Timothy Berg and Mark Bolton

Section 2 (A) Enforcement

The law: Prohibits the state or any county, city, town or other political subdivision from limiting or restricting the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.

Judge Susan Bolton's order: The United States did not make any arguments to have this provision enjoined. The provision took effect Thursday.

Section 2 (B) Arrests

The law: Requires law-enforcement officers to determine the immigration status of all individuals arrested in Arizona.

Bolton's order: The judge enjoined this provision. She determined that the provision requires law-enforcement officers to determine the immigration status of all individuals arrested in Arizona, not just those who are reasonably suspected of being in the country illegally. (Nearly 37,000 people were "arrested" last year in Tucson alone.)

According to Bolton, this provision conflicts with federal immigration policy as it will result in the harassment of lawfully present aliens and will burden federal resources.

Bolton points out that Congress intended to regulate immigration through a uniform national policy and prevent lawfully present aliens from being subjected to "inquisitorial practices and police surveillance." She held that this provision will "place lawfully present aliens (and U.S. citizens) in continual jeopardy of having to demonstrate their lawful status."

She also noted that many lawfully present aliens and U.S. citizens will not have readily available documentation to prove their legal status.

Additionally, Bolton concluded that the number of immigration-status inquiries that will emanate from this provision will direct resources away from the priorities and functions of federal agencies and that the provision therefore conflicts with federal immigration policy.

As a result of these conflicts, Bolton ruled that this provision is pre-empted.

Section 2 (G-L) Citizen lawsuits

The law: Allows legal residents of Arizona to sue any state official, agency or political subdivision for adopting a policy that restricts the enforcement of federal immigration law to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.

Bolton's order: The United States did not make any arguments to have this provision enjoined. The provision took effect Thursday.

Section 3 Documentation

The law: Makes it a state crime to violate federal alien-registration laws and creates criminal penalties.

Bolton's order: The judge enjoined this provision. In interpreting this provision, Bolton relies on federal law stating that the federal government's system for alien registration precludes states from enacting registration laws that conflict with or supplement federal law.

According to Bolton, by establishing state criminal penalties for a violation of federal alien-registration laws, SB 1070 supplements federal law. She also found that SB 1070 supplements the federal scheme in a way that conflicts with federal immigration policy, which envisions a uniform federal registration system. Therefore, the judge determined that this section is pre-empted.

Section 5 Soliciting work

The law: States that it is unlawful for an illegal immigrant to apply for work, solicit work in a public place, or perform work as an employee or independent contractor. The provision also imposes criminal penalties on aliens who violate this section.

Bolton's order: The judge enjoined this provision. She determined that the provision was pre-empted by existing federal law governing the employment of aliens. Specifically, the federal government chose not to impose criminal penalties on illegal immigrants who work in the United States. Instead, the federal government determined that it could best deter the hiring of illegal immigrants by imposing criminal sanctions on employers that do the hiring.

According to federal law, when a discrete area of a federally regulated field is deliberately left unregulated, there is a presumption that it was the federal government's policy to leave that discrete area unregulated. Therefore, state laws that regulate that particular subject are presumed to be pre-empted.

Bolton's order sets out an extensive list of areas in which the federal government has regulated the employment of aliens. The list does not include criminal penalties imposed on aliens who work in the United States. She concluded that SB 1070's imposition of criminal penalties places it in conflict with federal immigration policy and that this provision is pre-empted.

Section 5 Transporting or harboring

The law: Makes it illegal for an individual who is "in violation of a criminal offense" to (1) transport or move or attempt to transport or move an alien in a means of transportation in furtherance of the alien's unlawful presence in the United States; (2) conceal, harbor or shield or attempt to conceal, harbor or shield an alien in the state; and (3) encourage or induce an alien to come to or live in Arizona. To violate this section, the individual must also know or recklessly disregard the fact that the alien is unlawfully present in the United States.

Bolton's order: The judge held that this provision is not pre-empted by federal law, and it therefore went into effect on Thursday. The United States argued that this provision should be pre-empted because it impermissibly regulates immigration, an exclusively federal power, and because it violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Bolton rejected these arguments.

The regulation of immigration is "a determination of who should or should not be admitted into the country, and the conditions under which a legal entrant may remain." According to the judge, this section of SB 1070 does not attempt to regulate who should or should not be admitted to the country and does not establish conditions under which a legal entrant may remain in the United States. Therefore, the provision does not regulate immigration.

Bolton also rejected the United States' argument that this section violates the Commerce Clause. A state violates the Commerce Clause when it regulates an activity that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

According to the judge, this provision governs conduct occurring only in Arizona and does not substantially burden interstate commerce.

Section 6 Removal

The law: Allows law-enforcement officers to make a warrantless arrest in which the officer has probable cause to believe that "the person to be arrested has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States."

Bolton's order: The judge enjoined this provision. To enforce this section of the bill, law-enforcement officers would be required to understand which public offenses subject an individual to removal from the United States. According to the judge, this task is extremely complex. Under current federal law, this determination is made by immigration judges and federal appeals court judges.

In its arguments, the United States presented evidence that Arizona law-enforcement officers "have no familiarity with assessing whether a public offense would make an alien removable from the United States." Bolton determined that this provision would likely result in law-enforcement officers wrongfully arresting legal residents.

In doing so, Arizona law enforcement would impose a "distinct, unusual and extraordinary" burden on lawfully present aliens, which is in conflict with federal immigration policy that seeks uniformity and aims to prevent lawfully present aliens from being subjected to "inquisitorial practices and police surveillance." Bolton determined that this provision is pre-empted.

In seeking to enjoin these provisions of SB 1070 from taking effect on Thursday, the United States also had to prove that it would likely suffer "irreparable harm" if the laws took effect, that the "balance of equities" tipped in favor of enjoining the law and that an injunction was "in the public interest."

Bolton determined that the United States would suffer "irreparable harm" if SB 1070 became effective. Specifically, the United States' "ability to enforce its policies and achieve its objectives (would) be undermined by the state's enforcement of (laws) that interfere with federal law."

Bolton also determined that the "balance of equities" and the "public interest" favored enjoining the law. The judge held that enforcement of SB 1070 would burden legal residents of the United States and interfere with federal policy, neither of which serves the public interest. Additionally, she concluded that the state enforcing a pre-empted law does not further the public interest.

More on Berg and Bolton

Timothy Berg is managing partner of Fennemore Craig. He has practiced law for over 30 years, with a substantial part of his practice focusing on civil appeals. He has participated in the briefing or argument of more than 300 appeals before the various federal Courts of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Arizona and both divisions of the Arizona Court of Appeals. His appellate practice spans many areas, including employment law; medical malpractice; product liability; environmental, state and local taxation; business torts, real property and mineral rights; bankruptcy, and public-records and public-utilities law. Berg can be reached at tberg@fclaw.com.

Mark Bolton is an associate in the Phoenix office of Fennemore Craig. He is a member of the firm's government-relations-practice group. His practice is focused on government relations, with an emphasis on representing corporate- and trade-association clients on state legislative issues. Bolton also assists clients in their interaction with Congress and federal agencies. He can be reached at mbolton@fclaw.com.

Read more: Arizona Republic 

For Immediate Release

TO ADDITIONAL INTERSECTION ON MCCARTER HIGHWAY on july 15

City will start issuing violations to motorists who run red lights at intersection of McCarter Highway and Lafayette Street;

Two more intersections will go active on August 1

Newark, NJ – July 15, 2010 - Mayor Cory A. Booker, Acting Engineering Director Mehdi Mohammadish, and Police Director Garry F. McCarthy announced today that the City of Newark will expand its “Project Red Light” Automated Photo Enforcement System on Thursday, July 15, 2010, by ending its 30-day warning period at the intersection of McCarter Highway and Lafayette Street.

All motorists who run through red lights at McCarter Highway and Lafayette Street on or after July 15 will be issued an $85 traffic violation. A list of all intersections affected by Project Red Light, pending and active, is attached.

“This program was created for the critical purpose of increasing pedestrian and motor safety at our busiest intersections,” Mayor Booker said. “With our partners, we are now efficiently and effectively pursuing and punishing motorists who disregard our laws and disrespect the lives of our residents by running red lights, and saving many lives.”

The camera installations and activations are part of a continuing initiative to reduce the number of traffic accidents caused by motorists who ignore red lights. Newark is the first municipality in the State to implement this program. The Project Red Light Automated Photo Enforcement system first went into operation on December 16, 2009, at the intersection of Broad Street and Raymond Boulevard and the intersection of Broad and Market Streets.

In January 2008, Governor Jon S. Corzine enacted Assembly Bill 4314, establishing a five-year pilot program to determine the effectiveness of the installation and utilization of traffic control signal monitoring systems. Under the program, a traffic control signal monitoring system utilizes cameras and vehicle sensors in conjunction with the intersection’s traffic lights to produce images of vehicles disregarding a red signal and running a red light.

“The Red Light Camera Program is supporting our Police Department in its efforts to enforce traffic safety regulations and is improving safety at our intersections for both motorists and pedestrians,” Acting Director Mohammadish noted. Twelve other intersections are also pending approval from the New Jersey State Department of Transportation.

According to Acting Manager Jack Nata, whose Division of Traffic and Signals is overseeing the implementation of the program, the City of Newark selected Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. of Phoenix, to establish this vital safety program. “The Red Light Camera Program is one of the most important safety initiatives the Department of Engineering has ever pursued. This program is enhancing the safety improvements we have already implemented at these intersections, and has created safer intersections for pedestrians and motorists alike,” Mr. Nata said.

The type of violation issued is similar to one for running a red light captured by a police officer on the street, with the exception that no points will be assigned against the driver or the owner of the vehicle. The penalty imposed for failing to observe a traffic control device is set forth in Title 39 of the New Jersey Statutes. The automated cameras snap photographs of license plates of vehicles that run red lights, which will result in the owners of the vehicles being mailed a ticket for the violation. Violators can view the digital still images and a 12-second video of the violation online. The program is financed by a percentage of the paid violations being collected by the State and disbursed among the State, County, and City.

“The Red Light Camera Program enhances our ability to enforce traffic ordinances and maintain safety for pedestrians and motorists without incurring additional expenses or duties for our officers,” Director McCarthy said. “We are using the latest technology and maximizing those partnerships that enable us to work smarter, and to eliminate the needless tragedies that result when motorists ignore red lights.”

Two more intersections will end their 30-day warning periods and go active on Sunday, August 1, 2010. These intersections are McCarter Highway and Edison Place, and McCarter Highway and Market Street.

For information on all City of Newark programs and policies, contact the Non-Emergency Call Center at (973) 733-4311.

-NEWARK-

Contact:         

Newark Press Information Office - (973) 733-8004 or PressOffice@ci.newark.nj.us

Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. - (781) 684-0770 or redflex@schwartz-pr.com

For more information on the City of Newark, please visit our website at www.ci.newark.nj.us

Follow us on Twitter: www.twitter.com/cityofnewarknj

About the City of Newark, New Jersey

Newark, commonly referred to as Brick City, is the third oldest city in the United States and the largest in New Jersey, with a population of more than 280,000 people. Newark sits on one of the nation’s largest transportation super-structures including an international airport, major rail connections, major highway intersections and the busiest seaport on the east coast.

With a new Administration as of July 2006, Newark continues to see signs of a strong revival.  In population, it is one of the fastest growing cities in the northeast. Its six major colleges and universities are further expanding their presence. The production of affordable housing has doubled, businesses are returning and crime is going down. There is still much work to be done but Newark is on its way to achieving its mission:  to set a national standard for urban transformation.

LIST OF PENDING AND ACTIVE INTERSECTIONS

McCarter Highway and Market Street -   Warning Period Ends: August 1

McCarter Highway and Edison Place - Warning Period Ends: August 1

McCarter Highway and Lafayette Street - Warning Period Ends: July 15

McCarter Highway and South Street

Broad Street and Market Street

Broad Street and Raymond Boulevard

Broad Street and Murray Street

Raymond Boulevard and Raymond Plaza West

Raymond Blvd and Prospect Street

Mulberry Street and Market Street