Arizona's Own Espresso Pundit

The End of a Dream

The story of the illegal immigrant who killed a Phoenix police officer earlier this week took a strange twist.  It turns out that Erik Jovani Martinez was  "Dream Baby."

Martinez was brought to the United States as an infant and lived his whole life here. Clearly, he also was a career criminal, racking up a dozen arrests before he turned 18 and continuing to have brushes with the law afterward.

The media like to portray Dream Babies as victims.  These kids are all would-be Rhodes Scholars whose efforts to cure cancer have been stymied by Russell Peace and his cruel band of Xenophobic zealots. 

Some of these kids, of course,are really good kids, but some of them are career thugs.

Congress and the media are working to carve out exceptions for immigrants who were brought here illegally while they were children.  These exemptions would provide a path to citizenship for immigrants who could provide:  Proof of having arrived in the United States before reaching 16 years of age; Proof of residence in the United States for a least five (5) consecutive years since their date of arrival. Having graduated from an American High School, or obtained a GED. "Good moral character," essentially defined as the absence of a significant criminal record (or any drug charges whatsoever).

Martinez was a career thug who obviously wouldn't have qualified under the act.  But perhaps there should be a "Nightmare Baby" component of the Dream Act.  Immediate deportation for illegal immigrants who have become adults and have a record of thuggery. 

Indeed, Maritinez was deported initially, but returned immediately.  At that point my compassion ends. 

If you are here illegally, cause trouble, get deported and get caught in the country again, then we are talking about lengthy prison terms. 

The catch and release policy makes the US a laughingstock.  Dream Act advocates would have a lot more credibility if in addition to advocating compassion for the Dream Babies, they were willing to advocate discipline for the Nightmare Babies. 

This Looks Interesting.

Legislative Alert - Rep Russell Pearce

Legislative Workshop November 13th
Hosted by Rep. Russell Pearce

Friends,

I am excited to tell you about a Legislative Workshop that is being
conducted at the Arizona State Capitol.  It is designed for Arizona citizens
to help them understand the procedures and processes of the legislature.
Topics that will be discussed are:  how a bill is drafted, how a bill moves
through the legislature, the Arizona Legislative Information System (ALIS),
the Request to Speak Program and how to more effectively use the legislative
website.

There will be a lot of information provided and an opportunity to ask
questions. 

Date:  November 13, 2007
Check in 7:30 AM
Time:  8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon
Location:  Arizona State Capitol - House of Representatives
Parking:  Wesley Bolin Plaza
Cost:  *FREE*

To register** you must purchase  a (FREE)  ticket. There is not cost. go to
www.legislativealerts.sirbarratt.com. There will be a link there to get
tickets. Again, this is FREE. Limit 2 tickets per-person. Please call Eric
Johnson at 480-892-5154 if you are disabled and need assistance with
seating.

**For security reasons "walk-ins" or "day of the event" registration will
not be allowed.  It is imperative that registration is completed early.
Registration ends November 5th or until all seats are reserved.

You don't want to miss this opportunity.  We only have a limited number of
seats on the House Floor and in the Gallery so you must register early. 

For additional information and tickets go to
www.legislativealerts.sirbarratt.com

I hope to see you there - Russell

Finally, an Accurate Description

From  AzCentral:

The illegal immigrant who fatally shot a Phoenix police officer on Tuesday had been arrested by Scottsdale police last year, just two months after he was deported from the country.

What, he's not a "migrant," and the people who oppose his being in the country aren't "anti immigration advocates?"

The Star gets it right as well. 

The man who shot and killed a Phoenix police officer before he himself later was fatally shot by authorities was an illegal immigrant, a federal official said Wednesday.

The Last Acceptable form of Discrimination II

I've been providing examples government discrimination against religion.  Here's another great example from the University System.  Non-resident tuition to Arizona schools is about triple the cost of in-state tuition, and the Residency office is very aggressive--and rightly so--about weeding out pretenders.  After all, there are plenty of kids here from, say, California who intend to work in California, and are just in Arizona for school.

The Residency office also understands that some kids are life-long Arizonans who get their undergraduate degrees in other states.   When they come back to Arizona for graduate school, the Residency office correctly classifies those kids Arizonans--unless they go on a mission.

That's right.  If you are born and raised in Mesa and go to BYU, then you are considered a resident if you come back to ASU for law school.  But if you go to Bolivia for 2 years, the Residency office refuses to grant you in-state tuition when you return. 

It seems like the students could easily explain that they have no intention of living in Bolivia after law school.  But the Residency office isn't buying it.  To its credit the law school administration works to appeal the denial of residency status, but it's a lot of work and has to be done case by case.

I can't imagine the legislature is happy with this result, and this seems like something that could be fixed by a bill. 

In fact, there's probably someone out there who could fix it with a phone call.

The Movement Grows

Here's an interesting development.  Check out this blog entry about the implications of the Sutherland institutes' support of vouchers. 

School Voucher Bombshell

Utah's expansive school voucher program has gotten a huge boost.

The Sutherland Institute, a conservative Utah think tank, has released a report entitled "Vouchers, Vows and Vexations" in support of the voucher program.

Big deal, right?

Wrong. This is Utah. The Sutherland Institute tends to align itself with the LDS church. And, the report claims that that the LDS faith would be broadly threatened by the failure of the voucher initiative.

Here's the background. Last spring Utah's legislature approved the most comprehensive voucher program in the country. Through efforts of the NEA, UEA, state education officials, and a timid judiciary and executive, this program was passed back to voters for a referendum this November. This is an off-year election, so the referendum was expected to fail as many voters would not be expected to show up.

Enter The Sutherland Institute. They make extraordinary dual claims: 1) that the voucher program is consistent with how the LDS culture has historically viewed public education, and that 2) the view of contemporary education imposed from the Federal level is a threat to that culture.

No honest person who has studied the historical record of Utahns ... could conclude anything other than that they would have embraced what we now call vouchers. [pg. 40]

... The public school system ... often does not represent the very people it claims to support. This view certainly reflects the LDS Church experience ... [pg. 7]

This is likely to resonate deeply with Utah voters: precedents set by the pioneers are very important to Utahns, and the view that their religion continues to be systematically persecuted runs deep.

Objectively, this position is laughable. Public education in Utah is already close to what parents in other states would regard as parochial. LDS viewpoints pervade history, civics, and ethics teaching - as they should if we are to take Federalism seriously. Further, time from the school day is allotted for LDS students to attend classes at LDS Institutes of Religion, typically located adjacent to high schools - a system that according to the letter of the law is identical to what Catholic students did in the public schools I attended in upstate New York, only far more pervasive.

But, it is the subjective position that is important in this case. The 1/3 of Utahns who are not Mormons, and who are predominantly Democratic, are inclined to favor the voucher program as a way to control their children's religious exposure. The Republican party machine in the state already supports them. The problem is getting the voters to turn out. If The Sutherland Institute can mobilize voters who are ambivalent about vouchers to view this as a pro-Mormon issue, then it is reasonable to expect it to pass easily.

Bottom line, this is an unprecedented salvo in the national battle over vouchers, and one that probably could only be made in Utah. But, if the referendum passes, the motivation will be forgotten once the camel's nose is under the tent flap.

Utah's expansive school voucher program has gotten a huge boost.

The Sutherland Institute, a conservative Utah think tank, has released a report entitled "Vouchers, Vows and Vexations" in support of the voucher program.

Big deal, right?

Wrong. This is Utah. The Sutherland Institute tends to align itself with the LDS church. And, the report claims that that the LDS faith would be broadly threatened by the failure of the voucher initiative.

Here's the background. Last spring Utah's legislature approved the most comprehensive voucher program in the country. Through efforts of the NEA, UEA, state education officials, and a timid judiciary and executive, this program was passed back to voters for a referendum this November. This is an off-year election, so the referendum was expected to fail as many voters would not be expected to show up.

Enter The Sutherland Institute. They make extraordinary dual claims: 1) that the voucher program is consistent with how the LDS culture has historically viewed public education, and that 2) the view of contemporary education imposed from the Federal level is a threat to that culture.

No honest person who has studied the historical record of Utahns ... could conclude anything other than that they would have embraced what we now call vouchers. [pg. 40]

... The public school system ... often does not represent the very people it claims to support. This view certainly reflects the LDS Church experience ... [pg. 7]

This is likely to resonate deeply with Utah voters: precedents set by the pioneers are very important to Utahns, and the view that their religion continues to be systematically persecuted runs deep.

Objectively, this position is laughable. Public education in Utah is already close to what parents in other states would regard as parochial. LDS viewpoints pervade history, civics, and ethics teaching - as they should if we are to take Federalism seriously. Further, time from the school day is allotted for LDS students to attend classes at LDS Institutes of Religion, typically located adjacent to high schools - a system that according to the letter of the law is identical to what Catholic students did in the public schools I attended in upstate New York, only far more pervasive.

But, it is the subjective position that is important in this case. The 1/3 of Utahns who are not Mormons, and who are predominantly Democratic, are inclined to favor the voucher program as a way to control their children's religious exposure. The Republican party machine in the state already supports them. The problem is getting the voters to turn out. If The Sutherland Institute can mobilize voters who are ambivalent about vouchers to view this as a pro-Mormon issue, then it is reasonable to expect it to pass easily.

Bottom line, this is an unprecedented salvo in the national battle over vouchers, and one that probably could only be made in Utah. But, if the referendum passes, the motivation will be forgotten once the camel's nose is under the tent flap.

A Matter of Convenience

The Governor was out of town last week, but insists that she's still in charge despite the plain language of the Constitution. 

Janet Napolitano says the Arizona Constitution's "anachronistic" provision that says she loses her gubernatorial authority when absent from the state is the law as written but that reality is another matter.

A provision that dates from statehood nearly a century ago says a governor's powers go to the secretary of state when the governor is absent.

Citing improved communications now available, senior Napolitano aides have said over the years that they believe Napolitano retains her authority as governor even when outside the state.

Improved communications?  The first transatlantic telegram occurred between Queen Victoria and James Buchanan in 1858.  Arizona's founders certainly understood instant communications.  No.  I don't think the governors "living" interpretation of our Constitution is based on improvements in technology.  The interpretation is based on politics.  The second in command is a Republican.  After all, when Napolitano was supporting Secretary Brewer's opponent, the Governor was quick to point out that he would be in charge when she was out of town. 

Notice the yellow note in the right hand corner.  That's right, you need to vote for Israel Torres because he's going to be Governor when I'm out of town.  Now that Brewer is the Secretary of State, Napolitano is Governor as long as she has her blackberry. 

 

Straight from the Source

Make sure you check out Espresso Straight News for news straight from the source.  Be sure to mark it as a favorite.  You can also just click the big blue button on the left and go to espresso straight directly from espresso pundit.  http://www.espressostraight.com/

Your Slip is Showing

It's fun to read blog entries from local reporters.  The conversational tone causes them to let their guard down and we occasionally get a Freudian Slip that provides a glimpse into their biases.  Those biases color their reporting as well, but they work harder to cover the tracks.  Here's a great example from the Republic's Mary Jo Pitzl.   

Observers, such as the pro-woman Arizona List, say that women seem to gain a large degree of credibility from the law-and-order credentials that come with being attorney general.

"Pro-woman" Arizona List?  Hmm.  As opposed to, say, "anti-woman?"  Isn't everyone "pro-woman?"  How about the Crisis Pregnancy Center?  Is it "pro-woman."  How about the Center for Arizona Policy, or Karen Johnson?  Are they "pro-woman?"

No, "pro-woman" is a code word for organizations like the Arizona List.   Here's how the Arizona List describes itself. 

Arizona List is a grassroots donor network supporting pro-choice women Democrats running for the Arizona State Legislature, county and municipal offices, and school boards. We are modeled after EMILY's List and are committed to increasing the number of pro-choice women Democrats elected to office in Arizona.

Pitzl isn't trying to express an opinion.  Her statement reflects an underlying assumption that is so deeply ingrained that she doesn't even notice it.  Pro-choice Democrats are the ones who support women and they are in an epic struggle with the other side--the anti-choice Republicans--who are by definition "anti-woman."  Pitzl doesn't see this as a policy difference, it's a moral issue...good versus evil, right versus wrong.  And we know whose side she is on. 

Remember that the next time she writes a story about a pro-life candidate.  (I certainly will.)

The Last Acceptable form of Discrimination

These two stories provide a great example of the last acceptable form of discrimination.

The first is from the UA.

A Christian-themed concert took place as planned Friday night at the University of Arizona despite student-body leaders' denying more than $4,000 in funding they'd promised organizers days earlier.
Funding was pulled in a broad bylaw change approved by ASUA — Associated Students of the University of Arizona — this week that will also affect any other club events with blatantly religious or political messages.

Concerns about objectivity also were raised because at the same meeting, ASUA approved funding for an ad to run in the student newspaper during "Coming Out Week." The ad will be run by a student-government-affiliated gay-rights organization.

That's right, no funding if your organization is "blatantly religious."  What that generally means is "blatantly Christian."  The Muslims and wicka groups do fine on University campuses. 

The next example is also from the Star.

The Arizona Life Coalition charges in legal papers that a state commission that reviews requests for special plates acted illegally in rejecting its application. The lawsuit asks the three-judge panel to order the members of the Arizona License Plate Commission to approve the plate.

"The state must have the power to decline to express viewpoints that it does not wish to express," Morrow wrote in the appellate briefs. "Many Arizonans may be offended if they believe that Arizona is sponsoring a pro-choice message, just as many Arizonans may be offended if they believe that Arizona is sponsoring a pro-life message."

If the state only wants "non-offensive" messages on its license plates then it needs to stick to "The Grand Canyon State."  As soon as the state establishes a forum for messages to be displayed, it can't pick and choose the messages that get presented.

Here's an editorial that completely misses the point  in today's Star.

Unfortunately, it appears Arizona opened a proverbial can of worms by allowing nonpolitical, noncontroversial slogans to appear on its license plates.

The state offers license plates with the University of Arizona logo. Others identify winners of the Purple Heart, members of the Navajo Nation, advocates of child-abuse prevention and support for spaying and neutering pets. There are 22 such slogans listed on the Motor Vehicles Department's Web site, in addition to the standard license plate.

That part is correct.  The state opened the can of worm by establishing a forum for people to express themselves.  The Star goes on to talk about how much it supports free speech.  (They don't actually start with "some of my best friends are black," but it's the same arguement.)

After conceeding that the license plates are a forum for speech and pontificating on how much they support free speech, the editorial board reaches its inevitable

Each side should have its say, but not as the pro-life groups want it, on our license plates.

That's right.  Speech that the Star doesn't like should be limited to a different forum. 

It's tempting for University organizations to fund all the groups except the Christian one, or for the license plate commission to approve all the messages except the pro-life one.  But we have a Constitution to prevent discrimination against groups that are out of cultural favor--especially the ones that are out of favor with the hapless Arizona Daily Star.

Party Time

The Espresso Pundit Anniversary Party was a great success.  We had 85 guests; Here are some of the pictures. 

This will give you a sense of the size of the group.  This is Joyce Schweikert, Jim Waring and Tina Allen at the buffet table.

Congressman John Shadegg, Stan Barnes and myself. 

Kyrsten Sinema wins the "in the Lion's Den Award."  I really appreciated her attending.  She filled out her own name tag and it says "Token Liberal."

(Right) Here's another good sport, The Republic's Richard DeUriarte with David and Joyce Schweikert.

I always forget how huge Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne is.  Here he is with my wife Debbie. 

On the Right we have a power table:  Commissioners Kris Mayes, Bill Mundell, Senator Barbara Leff, Connie Wilhelm, Ephram Cordova and Erik Ellis. 

Former Republic reporter turned PR bigwig Robbie Sherwood talks with Senator Bob Burns, Gayle Burns and Senator Jim Waring.

(Right) Professor Hurwitz tells me a very funny Civil Procedure story.  That Erie Doctrine is a hoot.

Sen. Waring with Rep Barto and Stan Barnes.  (Stan sure knows how to work a room.  The captions on all my shots of legislators are "Sen. X with Stan Barnes.")

Barnes with Com. Kris Mayes.

David Schweikert can't believe that Barry Aarons is serious.  While Nancy Barto looks on.

That's a pretty good sample of the pictures.  I want to thank everyone for coming.  We had a great time and I really look forward to year 4 of Espresso Pundit.  This year, my goal is to write more often (and lose 5 pounds.)  When I'm done with work, finished with my homework and the kids are tucked in, I'll make my way to the laptop.

It's been a great 3 years.  Thank you for all of your support. 

UPDATE:  In light of some comments by the Klute, I wanted to clarify the program.  I made a presentation called "The 5 Stages in the Life of a Blogger."  Stage 3 "Avoiding Disaster" included a bunch of funny and interesting pictures of elected officials.  I had the standard Dukakis in the tank and John Kerry in the Bunny Suit pictures.  I also had Jeff Flake on a Humvee, JD Hayworth on a Tank, Jon Kyl and Gabby Giffords in a helicopter.  I sprinkled in my senior picture, a  picture of me with Barry Gibb hair, Al Gore with at the Buddhist Temple and Hillary with Hsu. 

The Klute mentioned the Hayworth picture, and he is right that it got a laugh.  But I was in no way singling JD out--any more than I was singling out Flake or Kyl.