"Not since the days of Bull Connor has this country seen a public official abuse his authority in order to terrorize and intimidate communities based on the color of their skin," states a call for the big January 16th march in Phoenix against Arpaio. Sheriff Joe Arpaio is often compared to Bull Connor, the police official in Birmingham who fought civil rights activists with attack dogs, and strong water hoses back in the 1960's. He acted above the law, although some could argue that his actions were not contrary to the general orientation of the rule of law then or even today. He was more blatant about abusing protesters and disregarding federal law than most law enforcement officials, which is why Arpaio is compared to him.

During the civil rights movement, there were no marches against Bull Connor, but there were efforts to produce situations in which he would show the world what he was willing to do to fight integration. The horrible treatment of marchers drew the attention of the nation and encouraged John F. Kennedy to initiate the Civil Rights Act of 1964. To some, the Civil Rights Act was a victory, and the story somewhat ends there. This perspective makes it seem that Bull Connor was an important catalyst and therefore target (although he wasn't quite a target in the way Arpaio is today). Yet if this was the case, why do stories that focus on a wider black liberation movement rather a focus on aspects of what's called the civil rights movement that often focus on the federal government's benevolence or Martin Luther King's heroism not really mention Bull Connor at all?

More...

from judicialwatch.org

Arizona courts must stop conducting large criminal hearings involving illegal immigrants arrested along the Mexican border because they violate federal rules, according to a decision issued this week by a notoriously liberal appellate court famous for getting overturned by the Supreme Court.

To ease the overwhelming load of annually trying tens of thousands of illegal immigrants caught entering the U.S., federal courts in the Grand Canyon State hold mass hearings for those arrested in high-traffic areas, known as zero tolerance zones. A 2005 program (Operation Streamline) implemented to help curb the illegal immigration crisis in border states calls for the criminal prosecution of undocumented aliens in federal courts.

The idea is to dramatically reduce and deter illegal immigration and secure the nation’s borders from a potential terrorist threat and the illegal entry of weapons and drugs, according to Border Patrol officials. Before Operation Streamline was implemented, illegal border crossers were simply routed to civil deportation proceedings with no further consequences. Under Operation Streamline they face incarceration and subsequent deportation.

Last year alone, Arizona held criminal immigration proceedings for 25,000 illegal aliens. To deal with the influx, overwhelmed courts routinely include 50 to 100 defendants at a time. But the San Francisco-based 9th Court of Appeals claims the procedures involving multiple defendants violate federal rules and must be stopped.

"No judge, however conscientious, could have possessed the ability to hear distinctly and accurately fifty voices at the same time," according to the 19-page decision which acknowledges the “understandable” shortcuts that border-state courts adopt to manage their huge caseloads.

So many people are thinking it: Arpaio and his collaborators are putting the law into question, especially with the latest lawsuits and the disproportionate ways in which the laws have been enforced. After the stories on the singing protest of Arpaio that caused him to walk out on an interview, a news search for Arpaio will give you these stories: Arpaio and County Attorney Andrew Thomas are suing several judges and other county officials, and an MCSO officer recently got jail time for contempt of court for not apologizing for stealing files from a defense lawyers folder (and the resulting chaos involving a walk-out and a bomb threat, and the likelihood that the officer is in Arpaio's fancy jail for his allies).

When you hear statement after statement from the sheriff and county attorney and others that they're enforcing the law- that undocumented people are stopped/jailed because they're breaking the law, and then on top of that they all seem confused about what is actually legal or illegal and law-breaking cops get different treatment, you can't help but find that they are amazingly hypocritical.

What I'm getting at certainly isn't that we should be concerned that the sheriff and county attorney and others are making a mockery of law enforcement or the rule of law in general. The purpose of bringing these things up in relation to immigration is to point out that the rule of law is and always has been used to work in certain people's favor- those in power and with money, and to work against anyone who is a threat to holding onto that power and money. It's not quite as simple as that when you have a local sheriff giving a big middle finger to the federal and local governments- certainly they don't all work together.

More...

Because Sheriff Arpaio has been targeting migrants who are just driving, waiting for work, or working, activists have reacted by pointing out that the sheriff has not been serving 40,000 open warrants. Now the Maricopa County Sheriff's Department is serving warrants... in Guadalupe.

More...