by Michael Marcell and Luis Carlos López

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer filed an expedited appeal with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals July 29 following a preliminary injunction placed by U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton halting most of the key components of the state’ immigration law SB1070.

“Arizona has been suffering a consequence of illegal immigration and the lack of effective enforcement activity by the federal government,” the appeal stated.

An expedited appeal  requires a motion panel of three judges from the 9th Circuit, selected at random from a pool of 45, to decide whether the injunction poses “irreparable harm.” If so, it would be lifted, allowing SB1070 to come into fulleffect.

“I will battle all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, if necessary, for the right to protect the citizens of Arizona,” Brewer said a few hours after Bolton issued the injunction. Bolton’s ruling blocked major components of Arizona SB1070 which would have taken effect 90 days after Brewer signed.

Her ruling came less than 24 hours before full enforcement would have gone into effect, just as police officials were making last-minute compliance preparations.

Bolton ruled that if Arizona were to implement SB1070, it would interfere with federal policy. The injunction allows the federal government to continue pursuing federal priorities in the public interest until a final judgment is reached, Bolton, a Bill Clinton appointee, ruled.

The injunction limits SB1070’s full bite by blocking police from questioning a person’s legal status during routine investigations and eliminating mandatory detention of individuals who cannot verify their legal status at the time of arrest.

In addition, it strikes the “show me your papers” provision that requires individuals to carry documentation at all times and keeps authorities from labeling someone “removable” from the United States or conducting a warrantless arrest.

The law retains two provisions which trouble Latino advocates: 1) It still prohibits hiring of undocumented immigrants. 2) It allows Arizona to block cities within the state from  becoming sanctuaries to undocumented immigrants.

Alessandra Soler-Meetze, executive director of ACLU Arizona, told Weekly Report that Bolton’s decision was important in de- fining limits of local jurisdictions’ authority. “States that are considering similar measures should definitely take note that they simply  can’t hijack federal authority and create their own state immigration schemes which conflict with federal priorities and really do nothing to protect the residents of the state,” Soler-Meetze said.

Other voices, such as Arizona-based advocacy group Puente, weren’t as receptive. It claimed via Twitter, “We will not comply with the criminalization of our communities! Partial injunction is not victory.

Reaction from those who favor the Arizona law was just as vibrant. While Brewer called the injunction a “little bump on the road,” Arizona state Senator Russell Pearce, who authored the bill, told CNN he wrote  the law with the SupremeCourt in mind. He predicted it would be upheld in a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling.

William Gheen, president of Americans for Legal Immigration, voiced strong  displeasure.

“There’s a wave of anger sweeping the United States today,” Gheen said. “Between 60 and 80 percent of the American public supported the Arizona law, and Americans feel that President  Obama and this judge have thwarted democracy, and we’re advising all illegal immigrants to exit the country as soon as possible due to the rising anger in the American public.” Hispanic Link.

by the El Reportero’s news services

Chile announced on July 30 that it was restoring full diplomatic relations with Honduras and Mexico followed suit on July 31. Their moves leave Brazil uncomfortably allied with the radical leftwing governments of the region as the only countries refusing to recognise the legitimacy of the new Honduran government headed by President Porfirio Lobo. The Chilean and Mexican moves prompted José Miguel Insulza, the secretary general of the Organization of American States (OAS) to forecast that within a few weeks the OAS would take a decision to readmit Honduras.

Mexico car bomb triggers debate on escalation & shift to terrorism

The news that, for the first time ever, a car bomb had exploded in Ciudad Juárez, prompted two intertwined debates. The first hinges on whether this event marks the beginning of a new the second, on whether it can be considered as the onset of a terrorist phase in the violence practiced by the drug gangs. The second debate is of particular importance because it has repercussions that go far beyond Mexico. There are signs that it may resurface again in Colombia with the accession to power of Juan Manuel Santos on 7  August.

The Orquesta Aragón of Cuba.

As the cultural door opens again between the U.S. and Cuba, Orquesta Aragón returns to share their 70th Anniversary Celebration with us. Director Rafael Lay, son of an earlier leader of the group, brings us the group’s beautiful orchestration, performance excellence, and multiple music styles – from charanga to cha-cha-chá, son fusions and more. This is a timely celebration of seven decades of Cuban music and culture.

Founded in 1939, and performing continuously to sold-out audiences worldwide, Orquesta Aragón plays authentic Cuban music with a multi-generational appeal and has recorded over 100 albums.

Orquesta Aragón is widely known for some of their signature classics including “El Bodeguero”, “La Gloria Eres Tu”, “Pare Cochero”, “Espiritu Burlon” and “Calculadora” among many more. They have performed in some of  the most prestigious venues in the world including Carnegie Hall in New York City, Paris’ Olympia Theatre and Tchaikovsky’s Theatre in Russia.

If you love the Buena Vista Social Club and Juan de Marcos and the Afro-Cuban All-Stars, you will surely love Orquesta Aragón, La Madre de las Charangas Cubanas – The Mother of The Cuban Charangas.

The historical queen of charanga will bring us the best of their repertoire on Friday, August 13, 2010, at Zellerbach Hall (101 Zellerbach Hall #4800 University of California, Berkeley)

8p.m. (Door 7 pm). Tickets: $65 Orch-$50 Mezz/Tiers-$35 Balcony

Advance Tickets, music player and videos: http: //www.AragonAtZellerbach.com

Chupacabra devours cats and rabbits in the Ukraine­

Compiled by the El Reportero’s staff

The California Public Utilities Commission is scheduled to vote Thursday, August 5, on a proposed decision that would give critical protections for Californians facing shutoff of their electricity and gas service. Last winter, The Greenlining Institute joined with a coalition of consumer advocates to push for such protections as Californians – battered by a weak economy and soaring unemployment – struggled to pay their utility bills and shut-offs spiked during the coldest, rainiest part of the  year. The PUC held an emergency hearing on the crisis Dec. 16.

Chupacabra Devours Rabbits and Cats in Ukraine

Panic over a mysterious creature, which attacks humans and animals, has reached Ukraine’s Kiev. It goes about the so-called Chupacabra, which has been recently spotted in Ukraine’s Lvov, Cherkassk and Kiev regions.It ate almost all of my neighbor’s  rabbits, and even killed a cat of another neighbor,” a woman named only as Nina, a resident of a village near Kiev said.Eye-witnesses said that the creature looked like a big dog with huge fi – ery eyes.

The bizarre animal diffused unbearable stench. Village residents also said that the animal was hunting only at night time.“We stay on duty at night near our rabbits and chickens to protect them. The men decided to kill the creature, but they have not seen it so far,” the woman said.Chupacabra is no longer a demonic monster of Latin America only. The creature appeared in Russia and Ukraine several years ago. It was terrorizing Western Ukraine in 2009.

Local residents would often come across dead bodies of rabbits and chickens. People said that it often attacked pigs and left traces of strong jaws on wooden fences.When hunting on domestic animals, the creature  would penetrate into rabbit and chicken houses, strangle the animals and suck their blood out. It killed nearly 100 rabbits in Ukraine’s  Zakarpatskaya region.

Local farmers believe that it was a Chupacabra.The mysterious monster appeared in Russia too. The blood-sucking creature appeared in the Orenburg region of Russia in 2006. Farmers lost dozens of turkeys, sheep and goats. They originally believed that the animals had been killed by bobcats or wolves, but these predators eat prey’s meat, whereas the creature only drank animals’ blood. No one has been able to explain the bizarre deaths of domestic animals.

The Chupacabra, which literally translates from Spanish as ‘goat sucker’, is a phenomenon that appeared in 1995 in the mountains of Puerto Rico. The name comes from the animal’s reported habit of attacking and drinking the blood of livestock, especially goats. Physical descriptions of the creature vary.

Eyewitness sightings have been claimed as early as 1990 in Puerto Rico, and have since been reported as far north as Maine, and as far south as Chile. It is supposedly a heavy creature, the size of a small bear, with a row of spines reaching from the neck to the base of the tail. Biologists and wildlife management officials view the chupacabras as a contemporary legend.

A woman, who saw the beast attacking a domestic animal, described the creature as a kangaroolike monster with furious  red eyes. Another eye-witness said that the beast was three or four feet high and had dinosaur-like skin. The animal also had large red eyes, long fangs and spikes on the back of its head and back

by José de la Isla  Hispanic Link News Service

HOUSTON — The so-called “immigration” issue is really a metaphor, a proxy for power plays by various factions where problem-solving is the least of the the concerns.

The civic-minded public, who want pragmatic solutions, is led down a path that seems complex, like ideological quicksand, and where everyone is betwixt and between. Actually, it’s not that complicated.

In shorthand, here’s what needs to be done: (1) legalize illegals, (2) wage fines on the surreptitious entry or require community service, (3)  a prescription for a new policy is contained in Darrell M. West’s book, “Brain Gain: Rethinking Immigration Policy,” (4) negotiate with Mexico and Canada for a new type of North American cross-border security, and (5) North Americanize by allowing law-abiding people freedom of movement around their continent but hat does not mean transferring citizenship.

Any three of the five recommendations above gets the country moving again and there is no need for acrimony nor anyone having the screaming memes.

By making these values clear, the logjam is broken that political beavers erected to sustain an untenable status quo.

Most important is that what’s at issue is not “immigration” but breaking up a whole lifestyle of bogus leadership, where one issue after another is stolen from the public. Individual citizens have been role-played into virtually needing a Ph.D. simply to have an informed opinion on this matter. Meanwhile, those responsible to coming up with solutions have the Library of Congress and other research services at their disposal to make informed decisions.

Surely it’s obvious by now something is very wrong and much of the public is being conned in this.

The proof of that became evident right after the Justice Department filed suit to halt the Arizona law that usurps federal authority and allows edgy discretions of its agents to infringe or verge on civil rights violations. You would think the Libertarians and the Tea Partiers would have been all over this intrusion and breach of personal rights. But they are not and the hypocrisy exposes the ideological charade that the “issues” are really about some people’s rights and not about People’s rights.

Why have the Libertarians and the Tea Partiers not weighed in against the Arizona law? Well, you know the answer?

On the left side of the page are those who run for cover at the fi rst sign of public opposition or heat. That political class simply wants leverage for future elections, to exploit the problem and profile themselves as answer-givers, which looks now more and more like an extortion racket.

As the first of seven lawsuits was heard on July 15, a July 6 TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence (TIPP) poll seemed to have a lot of sway on general opinion. It showed that 51 percent of Americans support Arizona’s law.

But that contrasts with an ABC News-Washington Post poll in June showing that 57 percent support giving illegal immigrants the right “to live here legally  if they pay a fi ne andmeet other requirements.

Drew Westen and Celinda Lake researched the contradictory information- -conducted in conjunction with the Republican fi rm Public Opinion Strategies and sponsored by America’s Voice. They found that 84 percent of people who support the Arizona law also support comprehensive immigration reform. Moreover, voters overwhelmingly want a national solution carried out by the federal government rather than state-by-state measures.

Frank Sharry, America’s Voice’s director, observed, the Arizona law is popular not because it is anti-immigrant but because the public is “in an anti-Washington mood.” Immigration is a stand in, a metaphor, for slow or no response to a public priority.

It’s not the first time that immigration is held hostage fearsplotation, hostility, and political agendas. Here’s one time  when the solution is easy. Getting off the question and doing something by policy-makers is what’s hard.

Instead of talking any more about Immigration Reform, isn’t it time to demand that Washington Reform Immigration. Hispanic Link.

[José de la  Isla writes a weekly commentary for Hispanic Link News Service. His 2009 digital book, sponsored by The Ford Foundation, is available free at www.DayNightL ifeDeathHope.com. He is author of The Rise of  Hispanic Political Power (2003). E-mail him at joseisla3@yahoo.com.]

by Luis Carlos López & Charlie Ericksen

For those with stunted memories: as the presidential primaries began unfolding in 2008, Hillary Clinton was the Hispanic candidate of choice. When Barack Obama became the Democratic Party’s standard- bearer, some Eastern pundits questioned whether Mexican-American voters could get really excited about a black candidate.

They found out. Lopsided Hispanic majorities in swing states proved decisive in Obama’s historic elevation to the White House. Crucial in their trust was Obama’s “guarantee” — his own chosen, oft-repeated word — that, if elected, he’d drive a bill through Congress in his first year as occupant of the Casa Blanca.

His effort wasn’t a convincing one, and he blamed his failure on the Republicans.

A Gallup Poll last month showed who Hispanics are coming to believe. Their support for Obama dropped 12 points since January and an unhappy 21 points for those interviewed  in Spanish.

President Obama’s July 1 speech on immigration reform at American University — his first since taking office — introduced nothing new. It drew reactions that ran the gamut  from ridicule to fawning praise. Not unexpectedly, most Latino leaders continued to profess their trust in the President’s ability to usher, eventually, something through Congress.

“What you won’t see is us throw more dirt on our president. We are disillusioned, but we are not going to throw in the towel,” said Jorge-Mario Cabrera, spokesperson for The Coalition for Humane Immigrant  Rights of Los Angeles.

Other leaders moved in lockstep to protect Obama’s back,

Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund president  Thomas Saenz offered, President Obama has reaf-  firmed the urgency of enacting progressive immigration reform…”

National Council of La Raza president Janet Murguía called the address “a necessary step in the right direction (but) speech alone is not enough.

Center for Community Change executive director Deepak Bhargava; “This is the kind of strong leadership on immigration reform we’ve needed to see and  hear from the President…”

William C. Velásquez Institute president Antonio González: “A down payment on immigration reform…This represents a path to success in the near term and a needed addition to the President’s views…”

League of United Latin American Citizens Rosa Rosales signed off on a press release stating, “LULAC praises the President’s efforts being done on getting comprehensive immigration  reform passed…”

The President’s speech was terrific,” critiqued pro-immigration America’s Voice executive director Frank Sharry. “He has engaged the country in a long overdue debate, and made the choice clear…”

Hispanic columnists weren’t nearly so generous. Esther Cepeda of Chicago led off after Obama’s speech, “I wish I could get the last 45 minutes of my life back.

Andy Porras, publisher of the journal Califas in Northern California, quoted Obama the candidate on “fixing” immigration: “I cannot guarantee that it’s going to be in the first 100 days. But what I can guarantee is that we will have in the first year an immigration  bill that I strongly support and that I’m promoting and that I want to move it forward as quickly as possible.”

Porras added: “That first year has long come and gone, and there is no such bill in sight.”

Finally, Hispanic Link/ Scripps-Howard syndicate columnist José de la Isla: ”Weren’t Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan a whole lot more effective at  getting things moving? It’s hard to tell what difference (Obama’s speech) makes, except of course to those who make a living from delay politics, checkmate rhetoric and blaming the  other side for inaction.”

As another advocate framed the Hispanic dilemma: “With Republicans already kissing Hispanics off, he’s the only game in town for us.” Hispanic Link.

(López and Ericksen are Washington-based editors with Hispanic Link News Service, Email: carlo se@hispaniclink.org)

by Jonathan Farrell

Ironically, as the Americans with Disabilities Act commemorates its 20th Anniversary, California legal advocates gave a press conference on July 27 as witness to the fact that Social Security owes about $700 million to people who had been wrongly cut off from their benefits.

“That number is what the Social Security Administration calculated. But we estimate that is closer to $1 billion,” said Gerald McIntyre of the National Senior Citizens Law Center of Los Angeles office.

McIntyre spoke to the press at New American Media headquarters in San Francisco. He was part of a panel of attorneys and advocates familiar with the 1996 U.S. law saying that benefits must be cut off from SSA recipients fleeing from court prosecution.

McIntyre was the lead attorney in the civil class action law case against SSA. The lead plaintiff was Rosa Martinez of Redwood City,CA. Her disability benefits were declined because of mistaken identity with someone with same name who had a 1980 felony warrant in Miami. Martinez then enlisted legal help because SSA reps would not listen even when she presented documented proof.

“Papers were filed in the summer of 2008, and an Oakland District Court Judge made the decision in favor in Dec. 2009,” said McIntyre, making Martinez v. Astrue a landmark case. (Michael J. Astrue is the U.S. Social Security Commissioner.) Now SSA under court order is restituting over 200,000 people nationwide who were erroneously denied benefits.

This 1996 SSA law was designed to eliminate fleeing felons from the SSA re- cipient rosters. “It was one of those regulations that did not really get enforced until about eight years later,” said attorney Steve Weiss of the Bay Area Legal Aid office of Alameda County.

“This regulation was narrowly and distortedly interpreted by SSA officials, said Andy Chu, director and counselor of the Positive Resource Center of SF. It resulted in thousands of disabled and elderly people cut off from benefits.

“The potential of felons receiving SSA benefits is less than one percent of the population,” noted McIntyre.

A “felony” could be as “something as stupid as a bounced check,” said Jose Munevar, who also spoke at the press conference. In his case benefits had been cut off for just that reason. Attorney Christopher Douglas of Legal Aid of San Mateo, noted that Munevar’s situation is not that uncommon. “Many people can have a warrant issued against them for whatever reason and not even know it.”

“Something as simple as an unpaid bill going to into collections caused some SSA recipients lose benefits,” said Weiss.

“This is why we want to get the word out to the public about this. So, that if people were wrongfully cut off from their benefits they need to contact Social Security. The first step is to seek advocate help,” said McIntyre. This can also apply to some Special Veterans Benefits. As a result of the Martinez v. Astrue case many people may be entitled to as much $10,000 to $40,000 retroactively in  lost benefits or assistance through Social Security Administration.

For more information visit www.ssa.gov/ martinezsettlement. In the SF Bay Area, people can get free legal assistance by contacting Bay Area Legal  Aid at (800) 551-5554 The telephone number of El Reportero is 415-648- 3711