Timely & Relevant

Read the AZ law right here

By John Andrews Arizona Senate Bill 1070, which Obama, Holder, and Napolitano have harshly condemned without even reading it, merely authorizes the beleaguered state's police and sheriffs to enforce federal immigration law in fully constitutional fashion. Anyone can ascertain this simple fact by quickly perusing the 17-page bill, which really boils down to a single, short, sensible, carefully-drafted paragraph, Section 2B on the first page.

For your convenience, here is the official text of SB 1070 as provided by the Arizona legislature itself.

- i - Senate Engrossed State of Arizona Senate Forty-ninth Legislature Second Regular Session 2010 SENATE BILL 1070 AN ACT AMENDING TITLE 11, CHAPTER 7, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING ARTICLE 8; AMENDING TITLE 13, CHAPTER 15, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING SECTION 13-1509; AMENDING SECTION 13-2319, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES; AMENDING TITLE 13, CHAPTER 29, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING SECTIONS 13-2928 AND 13-2929; AMENDING SECTIONS 23-212, 23-212.01, 23-214 AND 28-3511, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES; AMENDING TITLE 41, CHAPTER 12, ARTICLE 2, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING SECTION 41-1724; RELATING TO UNLAWFULLY PRESENT ALIENS. (TEXT OF BILL BEGINS ON NEXT PAGE) S.B. 1070 - 1 - 1 Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona: 2 Section 1. Intent 3 The legislature finds that there is a compelling interest in the 4 cooperative enforcement of federal immigration laws throughout all of 5 Arizona. The legislature declares that the intent of this act is to make 6 attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local 7 government agencies in Arizona. The provisions of this act are intended to 8 work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of 9 aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United 10 States. 11 Sec. 2. Title 11, chapter 7, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by 12 adding article 8, to read: 13 ARTICLE 8. ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS 14 11-1051. Cooperation and assistance in enforcement of 15 immigration laws; indemnification 16 A. NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR 17 OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY ADOPT A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR 18 RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL 19 EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW. 20 B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY 21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS 22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS 23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, 24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE 25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c). 27 C. IF AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IS 28 CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF STATE OR LOCAL LAW, ON DISCHARGE FROM 29 IMPRISONMENT OR ASSESSMENT OF ANY FINE THAT IS IMPOSED, THE ALIEN SHALL BE 30 TRANSFERRED IMMEDIATELY TO THE CUSTODY OF THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND 31 CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION. 32 D. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY MAY 33 SECURELY TRANSPORT AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES 34 AND WHO IS IN THE AGENCY'S CUSTODY TO A FEDERAL FACILITY IN THIS STATE OR TO 35 ANY OTHER POINT OF TRANSFER INTO FEDERAL CUSTODY THAT IS OUTSIDE THE 36 JURISDICTION OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY. 37 E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON 38 IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED 39 ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES. 40 F. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN FEDERAL LAW, OFFICIALS OR AGENCIES OF THIS 41 STATE AND COUNTIES, CITIES, TOWNS AND OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THIS 42 STATE MAY NOT BE PROHIBITED OR IN ANY WAY BE RESTRICTED FROM SENDING, 43 RECEIVING OR MAINTAINING INFORMATION RELATING TO THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF 44 ANY INDIVIDUAL OR EXCHANGING THAT INFORMATION WITH ANY OTHER FEDERAL, STATE 45 OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY FOR THE FOLLOWING OFFICIAL PURPOSES: S.B. 1070 - 2 - 1 1. DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR ANY PUBLIC BENEFIT, SERVICE OR LICENSE 2 PROVIDED BY ANY FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS 3 STATE. 4 2. VERIFYING ANY CLAIM OF RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE IF DETERMINATION OF 5 RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE IS REQUIRED UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS STATE OR A JUDICIAL 6 ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO A CIVIL OR CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IN THIS STATE. 7 3. CONFIRMING THE IDENTITY OF ANY PERSON WHO IS DETAINED. 8 4. IF THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN, DETERMINING WHETHER THE PERSON IS IN 9 COMPLIANCE WITH THE FEDERAL REGISTRATION LAWS PRESCRIBED BY TITLE II, CHAPTER 10 7 OF THE FEDERAL IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT. 11 G. A PERSON MAY BRING AN ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE ANY 12 OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL 13 SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ADOPTS OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR 14 RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL 15 EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW. IF THERE IS A JUDICIAL FINDING THAT AN 16 ENTITY HAS VIOLATED THIS SECTION, THE COURT SHALL ORDER ANY OF THE FOLLOWING: 17 1. THAT THE PERSON WHO BROUGHT THE ACTION RECOVER COURT COSTS AND 18 ATTORNEY FEES. 19 2. THAT THE ENTITY PAY A CIVIL PENALTY OF NOT LESS THAN ONE THOUSAND 20 DOLLARS AND NOT MORE THAN FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR EACH DAY THAT THE POLICY 21 HAS REMAINED IN EFFECT AFTER THE FILING OF AN ACTION PURSUANT TO THIS 22 SUBSECTION. 23 H. A COURT SHALL COLLECT THE CIVIL PENALTY PRESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION G 24 AND REMIT THE CIVIL PENALTY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY FOR DEPOSIT IN 25 THE GANG AND IMMIGRATION INTELLIGENCE TEAM ENFORCEMENT MISSION FUND 26 ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 41-1724. 27 I. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IS INDEMNIFIED BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT 28 OFFICER'S AGENCY AGAINST REASONABLE COSTS AND EXPENSES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY 29 FEES, INCURRED BY THE OFFICER IN CONNECTION WITH ANY ACTION, SUIT OR 30 PROCEEDING BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION TO WHICH THE OFFICER MAY BE A 31 PARTY BY REASON OF THE OFFICER BEING OR HAVING BEEN A MEMBER OF THE LAW 32 ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, EXCEPT IN RELATION TO MATTERS IN WHICH THE OFFICER IS 33 ADJUDGED TO HAVE ACTED IN BAD FAITH. 34 J. THIS SECTION SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH 35 FEDERAL LAWS REGULATING IMMIGRATION, PROTECTING THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF ALL 36 PERSONS AND RESPECTING THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF UNITED STATES 37 CITIZENS. 38 Sec. 3. Title 13, chapter 15, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by 39 adding section 13-1509, to read: 40 13-1509. Trespassing by illegal aliens; assessment; exception; 41 classification 42 A. IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF 43 TRESPASSING IF THE PERSON IS BOTH: 44 1. PRESENT ON ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LAND IN THIS STATE. 45 2. IN VIOLATION OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a). S.B. 1070 - 3 - 1 B. IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS SECTION, THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF AN 2 ALIEN'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE DETERMINED BY EITHER: 3 1. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO IS AUTHORIZED BY THE FEDERAL 4 GOVERNMENT TO VERIFY OR ASCERTAIN AN ALIEN'S IMMIGRATION STATUS. 5 2. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY COMMUNICATING WITH THE UNITED 6 STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES BORDER 7 PROTECTION PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c). 8 C. A PERSON WHO IS SENTENCED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION IS NOT ELIGIBLE 9 FOR SUSPENSION OR COMMUTATION OF SENTENCE OR RELEASE ON ANY BASIS UNTIL THE 10 SENTENCE IMPOSED IS SERVED. 11 D. IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER PENALTY PRESCRIBED BY LAW, THE COURT SHALL 12 ORDER THE PERSON TO PAY JAIL COSTS AND AN ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT IN THE 13 FOLLOWING AMOUNTS: 14 1. AT LEAST FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS FOR A FIRST VIOLATION. 15 2. TWICE THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED IN PARAGRAPH 1 OF THIS SUBSECTION IF THE 16 PERSON WAS PREVIOUSLY SUBJECT TO AN ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION. 17 E. A COURT SHALL COLLECT THE ASSESSMENTS PRESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION D OF 18 THIS SECTION AND REMIT THE ASSESSMENTS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, 19 WHICH SHALL ESTABLISH A SPECIAL SUBACCOUNT FOR THE MONIES IN THE ACCOUNT 20 ESTABLISHED FOR THE GANG AND IMMIGRATION INTELLIGENCE TEAM ENFORCEMENT 21 MISSION APPROPRIATION. MONIES IN THE SPECIAL SUBACCOUNT ARE SUBJECT TO 22 LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATION FOR DISTRIBUTION FOR GANG AND IMMIGRATION 23 ENFORCEMENT AND FOR COUNTY JAIL REIMBURSEMENT COSTS RELATING TO ILLEGAL 24 IMMIGRATION. 25 F. THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO A PERSON WHO MAINTAINS AUTHORIZATION 26 FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO REMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. 27 G. A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS A CLASS 1 MISDEMEANOR, EXCEPT THAT A 28 VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS: 29 1. A CLASS 3 FELONY IF THE PERSON VIOLATES THIS SECTION WHILE IN 30 POSSESSION OF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING: 31 (a) A DANGEROUS DRUG AS DEFINED IN SECTION 13-3401. 32 (b) PRECURSOR CHEMICALS THAT ARE USED IN THE MANUFACTURING OF 33 METHAMPHETAMINE IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 13-3404.01. 34 (c) A DEADLY WEAPON OR A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 35 13-105. 36 (d) PROPERTY THAT IS USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMMITTING AN ACT OF 37 TERRORISM AS PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 13-2308.01. 38 2. A CLASS 4 FELONY IF THE PERSON EITHER: 39 (a) IS CONVICTED OF A SECOND OR SUBSEQUENT VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION. 40 (b) WITHIN SIXTY MONTHS BEFORE THE VIOLATION, HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM 41 THE UNITED STATES PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1229a OR HAS 42 ACCEPTED A VOLUNTARY REMOVAL FROM THE UNITED STATES PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED 43 STATES CODE SECTION 1229c. S.B. 1070 - 4 - 1 Sec. 4. Section 13-2319, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read: 2 13-2319. Smuggling; classification; definitions 3 A. It is unlawful for a person to intentionally engage in the 4 smuggling of human beings for profit or commercial purpose. 5 B. A violation of this section is a class 4 felony. 6 C. Notwithstanding subsection B of this section, a violation of this 7 section: 8 1. Is a class 2 felony if the human being who is smuggled is under 9 eighteen years of age and is not accompanied by a family member over eighteen 10 years of age or the offense involved the use of a deadly weapon or dangerous 11 instrument. 12 2. Is a class 3 felony if the offense involves the use or threatened 13 use of deadly physical force and the person is not eligible for suspension of 14 sentence, probation, pardon or release from confinement on any other basis 15 except pursuant to section 31-233, subsection A or B until the sentence 16 imposed by the court is served, the person is eligible for release pursuant 17 to section 41-1604.07 or the sentence is commuted. 18 D. Chapter 10 of this title does not apply to a violation of 19 subsection C, paragraph 1 of this section. 20 E. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A PEACE OFFICER MAY LAWFULLY STOP 21 ANY PERSON WHO IS OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE IF THE OFFICER HAS REASONABLE 22 SUSPICION TO BELIEVE THE PERSON IS IN VIOLATION OF ANY CIVIL TRAFFIC LAW AND 23 THIS SECTION. 24 E. F. For the purposes of this section: 25 1. "Family member" means the person's parent, grandparent, sibling or 26 any other person who is related to the person by consanguinity or affinity to 27 the second degree. 28 2. "Procurement of transportation" means any participation in or 29 facilitation of transportation and includes: 30 (a) Providing services that facilitate transportation including travel 31 arrangement services or money transmission services. 32 (b) Providing property that facilitates transportation, including a 33 weapon, a vehicle or other means of transportation or false identification, 34 or selling, leasing, renting or otherwise making available a drop house as 35 defined in section 13-2322. 36 3. "Smuggling of human beings" means the transportation, procurement 37 of transportation or use of property or real property by a person or an 38 entity that knows or has reason to know that the person or persons 39 transported or to be transported are not United States citizens, permanent 40 resident aliens or persons otherwise lawfully in this state or have attempted 41 to enter, entered or remained in the United States in violation of law. S.B. 1070 - 5 - 1 Sec. 5. Title 13, chapter 29, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by 2 adding sections 13-2928 and 13-2929, to read: 3 13-2928. Unlawful stopping to hire and pick up passengers for 4 work; unlawful application, solicitation or 5 employment; classification; definitions 6 A. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR AN OCCUPANT OF A MOTOR VEHICLE THAT IS STOPPED 7 ON A STREET, ROADWAY OR HIGHWAY TO ATTEMPT TO HIRE OR HIRE AND PICK UP 8 PASSENGERS FOR WORK AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION IF THE MOTOR VEHICLE BLOCKS OR 9 IMPEDES THE NORMAL MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC. 10 B. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON TO ENTER A MOTOR VEHICLE THAT IS 11 STOPPED ON A STREET, ROADWAY OR HIGHWAY IN ORDER TO BE HIRED BY AN OCCUPANT 12 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE AND TO BE TRANSPORTED TO WORK AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION IF 13 THE MOTOR VEHICLE BLOCKS OR IMPEDES THE NORMAL MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC. 14 C. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED 15 STATES AND WHO IS AN UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN TO KNOWINGLY APPLY FOR WORK, SOLICIT 16 WORK IN A PUBLIC PLACE OR PERFORM WORK AS AN EMPLOYEE OR INDEPENDENT 17 CONTRACTOR IN THIS STATE. 18 D. A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS A CLASS 1 MISDEMEANOR. 19 E. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION: 20 1. "SOLICIT" MEANS VERBAL OR NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION BY A GESTURE OR A 21 NOD THAT WOULD INDICATE TO A REASONABLE PERSON THAT A PERSON IS WILLING TO BE 22 EMPLOYED. 23 2. "UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN" MEANS AN ALIEN WHO DOES NOT HAVE THE LEGAL 24 RIGHT OR AUTHORIZATION UNDER FEDERAL LAW TO WORK IN THE UNITED STATES AS 25 DESCRIBED IN 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1324a(h)(3). 26 13-2929. Unlawful transporting, moving, concealing, harboring 27 or shielding of unlawful aliens; vehicle 28 impoundment; classification 29 A. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON WHO IS IN VIOLATION OF A CRIMINAL 30 OFFENSE TO: 31 1. TRANSPORT OR MOVE OR ATTEMPT TO TRANSPORT OR MOVE AN ALIEN IN THIS 32 STATE IN A MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION IF THE PERSON KNOWS OR RECKLESSLY 33 DISREGARDS THE FACT THAT THE ALIEN HAS COME TO, HAS ENTERED OR REMAINS IN THE 34 UNITED STATES IN VIOLATION OF LAW. 35 2. CONCEAL, HARBOR OR SHIELD OR ATTEMPT TO CONCEAL, HARBOR OR SHIELD 36 AN ALIEN FROM DETECTION IN ANY PLACE IN THIS STATE, INCLUDING ANY BUILDING OR 37 ANY MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION, IF THE PERSON KNOWS OR RECKLESSLY DISREGARDS THE 38 FACT THAT THE ALIEN HAS COME TO, HAS ENTERED OR REMAINS IN THE UNITED STATES 39 IN VIOLATION OF LAW. 40 3. ENCOURAGE OR INDUCE AN ALIEN TO COME TO OR RESIDE IN THIS STATE IF 41 THE PERSON KNOWS OR RECKLESSLY DISREGARDS THE FACT THAT SUCH COMING TO, 42 ENTERING OR RESIDING IN THIS STATE IS OR WILL BE IN VIOLATION OF LAW. 43 B. A MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION THAT IS USED IN THE COMMISSION OF A 44 VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS SUBJECT TO MANDATORY VEHICLE IMMOBILIZATION OR 45 IMPOUNDMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 28-3511. S.B. 1070 - 6 - 1 C. A PERSON WHO VIOLATES THIS SECTION IS GUILTY OF A CLASS 1 2 MISDEMEANOR AND IS SUBJECT TO A FINE OF AT LEAST ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS, EXCEPT 3 THAT A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION THAT INVOLVES TEN OR MORE ILLEGAL ALIENS IS 4 A CLASS 6 FELONY AND THE PERSON IS SUBJECT TO A FINE OF AT LEAST ONE THOUSAND 5 DOLLARS FOR EACH ALIEN WHO IS INVOLVED. 6 Sec. 6. Section 23-212, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read: 7 23-212. Knowingly employing unauthorized aliens; prohibition; 8 false and frivolous complaints; violation; 9 classification; license suspension and revocation; 10 affirmative defense 11 A. An employer shall not knowingly employ an unauthorized alien. If, 12 in the case when an employer uses a contract, subcontract or other 13 independent contractor agreement to obtain the labor of an alien in this 14 state, the employer knowingly contracts with an unauthorized alien or with a 15 person who employs or contracts with an unauthorized alien to perform the 16 labor, the employer violates this subsection. 17 B. The attorney general shall prescribe a complaint form for a person 18 to allege a violation of subsection A of this section. The complainant shall 19 not be required to list the complainant's social security number on the 20 complaint form or to have the complaint form notarized. On receipt of a 21 complaint on a prescribed complaint form that an employer allegedly knowingly 22 employs an unauthorized alien, the attorney general or county attorney shall 23 investigate whether the employer has violated subsection A of this section. 24 If a complaint is received but is not submitted on a prescribed complaint 25 form, the attorney general or county attorney may investigate whether the 26 employer has violated subsection A of this section. This subsection shall 27 not be construed to prohibit the filing of anonymous complaints that are not 28 submitted on a prescribed complaint form. The attorney general or county 29 attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, 30 color or national origin. A complaint that is submitted to a county attorney 31 shall be submitted to the county attorney in the county in which the alleged 32 unauthorized alien is or was employed by the employer. The county sheriff or 33 any other local law enforcement agency may assist in investigating a 34 complaint. When investigating a complaint, the attorney general or county 35 attorney shall verify the work authorization of the alleged unauthorized 36 alien with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States Code section 37 1373(c). A state, county or local official shall not attempt to 38 independently make a final determination on whether an alien is authorized to 39 work in the United States. An alien's immigration status or work 40 authorization status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant 41 to 8 United States Code section 1373(c). A person who knowingly files a 42 false and frivolous complaint under this subsection is guilty of a class 3 43 misdemeanor. S.B. 1070 - 7 - 1 C. If, after an investigation, the attorney general or county attorney 2 determines that the complaint is not false and frivolous: 3 1. The attorney general or county attorney shall notify the United 4 States immigration and customs enforcement of the unauthorized alien. 5 2. The attorney general or county attorney shall notify the local law 6 enforcement agency of the unauthorized alien. 7 3. The attorney general shall notify the appropriate county attorney 8 to bring an action pursuant to subsection D of this section if the complaint 9 was originally filed with the attorney general. 10 D. An action for a violation of subsection A of this section shall be 11 brought against the employer by the county attorney in the county where the 12 unauthorized alien employee is or was employed by the employer. The county 13 attorney shall not bring an action against any employer for any violation of 14 subsection A of this section that occurs before January 1, 2008. A second 15 violation of this section shall be based only on an unauthorized alien who is 16 or was employed by the employer after an action has been brought for a 17 violation of subsection A of this section or section 23-212.01, subsection A. 18 E. For any action in superior court under this section, the court 19 shall expedite the action, including assigning the hearing at the earliest 20 practicable date. 21 F. On a finding of a violation of subsection A of this section: 22 1. For a first violation, as described in paragraph 3 of this 23 subsection, the court: 24 (a) Shall order the employer to terminate the employment of all 25 unauthorized aliens. 26 (b) Shall order the employer to be subject to a three year 27 probationary period for the business location where the unauthorized alien 28 performed work. During the probationary period the employer shall file 29 quarterly reports in the form provided in section 23-722.01 with the county 30 attorney of each new employee who is hired by the employer at the business 31 location where the unauthorized alien performed work. 32 (c) Shall order the employer to file a signed sworn affidavit with the 33 county attorney within three business days after the order is issued. The 34 affidavit shall state that the employer has terminated the employment of all 35 unauthorized aliens in this state and that the employer will not 36 intentionally or knowingly employ an unauthorized alien in this state. The 37 court shall order the appropriate agencies to suspend all licenses subject to 38 this subdivision that are held by the employer if the employer fails to file 39 a signed sworn affidavit with the county attorney within three business days 40 after the order is issued. All licenses that are suspended under this 41 subdivision shall remain suspended until the employer files a signed sworn 42 affidavit with the county attorney. Notwithstanding any other law, on filing 43 of the affidavit the suspended licenses shall be reinstated immediately by 44 the appropriate agencies. For the purposes of this subdivision, the licenses 45 that are subject to suspension under this subdivision are all licenses that S.B. 1070 - 8 - 1 are held by the employer specific to the business location where the 2 unauthorized alien performed work. If the employer does not hold a license 3 specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed 4 work, but a license is necessary to operate the employer's business in 5 general, the licenses that are subject to suspension under this subdivision 6 are all licenses that are held by the employer at the employer's primary 7 place of business. On receipt of the court's order and notwithstanding any 8 other law, the appropriate agencies shall suspend the licenses according to 9 the court's order. The court shall send a copy of the court's order to the 10 attorney general and the attorney general shall maintain the copy pursuant to 11 subsection G of this section. 12 (d) May order the appropriate agencies to suspend all licenses 13 described in subdivision (c) of this paragraph that are held by the employer 14 for not to exceed ten business days. The court shall base its decision to 15 suspend under this subdivision on any evidence or information submitted to it 16 during the action for a violation of this subsection and shall consider the 17 following factors, if relevant: 18 (i) The number of unauthorized aliens employed by the employer. 19 (ii) Any prior misconduct by the employer. 20 (iii) The degree of harm resulting from the violation. 21 (iv) Whether the employer made good faith efforts to comply with any 22 applicable requirements. 23 (v) The duration of the violation. 24 (vi) The role of the directors, officers or principals of the employer 25 in the violation. 26 (vii) Any other factors the court deems appropriate. 27 2. For a second violation, as described in paragraph 3 of this 28 subsection, the court shall order the appropriate agencies to permanently 29 revoke all licenses that are held by the employer specific to the business 30 location where the unauthorized alien performed work. If the employer does 31 not hold a license specific to the business location where the unauthorized 32 alien performed work, but a license is necessary to operate the employer's 33 business in general, the court shall order the appropriate agencies to 34 permanently revoke all licenses that are held by the employer at the 35 employer's primary place of business. On receipt of the order and 36 notwithstanding any other law, the appropriate agencies shall immediately 37 revoke the licenses. 38 3. The violation shall be considered: 39 (a) A first violation by an employer at a business location if the 40 violation did not occur during a probationary period ordered by the court 41 under this subsection or section 23-212.01, subsection F for that employer's 42 business location. 43 (b) A second violation by an employer at a business location if the 44 violation occurred during a probationary period ordered by the court under S.B. 1070 - 9 - 1 this subsection or section 23-212.01, subsection F for that employer's 2 business location. 3 G. The attorney general shall maintain copies of court orders that are 4 received pursuant to subsection F of this section and shall maintain a 5 database of the employers and business locations that have a first violation 6 of subsection A of this section and make the court orders available on the 7 attorney general's website. 8 H. On determining whether an employee is an unauthorized alien, the 9 court shall consider only the federal government's determination pursuant to 10 8 United States Code section 1373(c). The federal government's determination 11 creates a rebuttable presumption of the employee's lawful status. The court 12 may take judicial notice of the federal government's determination and may 13 request the federal government to provide automated or testimonial 14 verification pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c). 15 I. For the purposes of this section, proof of verifying the employment 16 authorization of an employee through the e-verify program creates a 17 rebuttable presumption that an employer did not knowingly employ an 18 unauthorized alien. 19 J. For the purposes of this section, an employer that establishes that 20 it has complied in good faith with the requirements of 8 United States Code 21 section 1324a(b) establishes an affirmative defense that the employer did not 22 knowingly employ an unauthorized alien. An employer is considered to have 23 complied with the requirements of 8 United States Code section 1324a(b), 24 notwithstanding an isolated, sporadic or accidental technical or procedural 25 failure to meet the requirements, if there is a good faith attempt to comply 26 with the requirements. 27 K. IT IS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO A VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION A OF THIS 28 SECTION THAT THE EMPLOYER WAS ENTRAPPED. TO CLAIM ENTRAPMENT, THE EMPLOYER 29 MUST ADMIT BY THE EMPLOYER'S TESTIMONY OR OTHER EVIDENCE THE SUBSTANTIAL 30 ELEMENTS OF THE VIOLATION. AN EMPLOYER WHO ASSERTS AN ENTRAPMENT DEFENSE HAS 31 THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE FOLLOWING BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE: 32 1. THE IDEA OF COMMITTING THE VIOLATION STARTED WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT 33 OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS RATHER THAN WITH THE EMPLOYER. 34 2. THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS URGED AND INDUCED THE 35 EMPLOYER TO COMMIT THE VIOLATION. 36 3. THE EMPLOYER WAS NOT PREDISPOSED TO COMMIT THE VIOLATION BEFORE THE 37 LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS URGED AND INDUCED THE EMPLOYER TO 38 COMMIT THE VIOLATION. 39 L. AN EMPLOYER DOES NOT ESTABLISH ENTRAPMENT IF THE EMPLOYER WAS 40 PREDISPOSED TO VIOLATE SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION AND THE LAW ENFORCEMENT 41 OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS MERELY PROVIDED THE EMPLOYER WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO 42 COMMIT THE VIOLATION. IT IS NOT ENTRAPMENT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR 43 THEIR AGENTS MERELY TO USE A RUSE OR TO CONCEAL THEIR IDENTITY. THE CONDUCT 44 OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND THEIR AGENTS MAY BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING 45 IF AN EMPLOYER HAS PROVEN ENTRAPMENT. S.B. 1070 - 10 - 1 Sec. 7. Section 23-212.01, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to 2 read: 3 23-212.01. Intentionally employing unauthorized aliens; 4 prohibition; false and frivolous complaints; 5 violation; classification; license suspension and 6 revocation; affirmative defense 7 A. An employer shall not intentionally employ an unauthorized alien. 8 If, in the case when an employer uses a contract, subcontract or other 9 independent contractor agreement to obtain the labor of an alien in this 10 state, the employer intentionally contracts with an unauthorized alien or 11 with a person who employs or contracts with an unauthorized alien to perform 12 the labor, the employer violates this subsection. 13 B. The attorney general shall prescribe a complaint form for a person 14 to allege a violation of subsection A of this section. The complainant shall 15 not be required to list the complainant's social security number on the 16 complaint form or to have the complaint form notarized. On receipt of a 17 complaint on a prescribed complaint form that an employer allegedly 18 intentionally employs an unauthorized alien, the attorney general or county 19 attorney shall investigate whether the employer has violated subsection A of 20 this section. If a complaint is received but is not submitted on a 21 prescribed complaint form, the attorney general or county attorney may 22 investigate whether the employer has violated subsection A of this section. 23 This subsection shall not be construed to prohibit the filing of anonymous 24 complaints that are not submitted on a prescribed complaint form. The 25 attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are 26 based solely on race, color or national origin. A complaint that is 27 submitted to a county attorney shall be submitted to the county attorney in 28 the county in which the alleged unauthorized alien is or was employed by the 29 employer. The county sheriff or any other local law enforcement agency may 30 assist in investigating a complaint. When investigating a complaint, the 31 attorney general or county attorney shall verify the work authorization of 32 the alleged unauthorized alien with the federal government pursuant to 33 8 United States Code section 1373(c). A state, county or local official 34 shall not attempt to independently make a final determination on whether an 35 alien is authorized to work in the United States. An alien's immigration 36 status or work authorization status shall be verified with the federal 37 government pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c). A person who 38 knowingly files a false and frivolous complaint under this subsection is 39 guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor. 40 C. If, after an investigation, the attorney general or county attorney 41 determines that the complaint is not false and frivolous: 42 1. The attorney general or county attorney shall notify the United 43 States immigration and customs enforcement of the unauthorized alien. 44 2. The attorney general or county attorney shall notify the local law 45 enforcement agency of the unauthorized alien. S.B. 1070 - 11 - 1 3. The attorney general shall notify the appropriate county attorney 2 to bring an action pursuant to subsection D of this section if the complaint 3 was originally filed with the attorney general. 4 D. An action for a violation of subsection A of this section shall be 5 brought against the employer by the county attorney in the county where the 6 unauthorized alien employee is or was employed by the employer. The county 7 attorney shall not bring an action against any employer for any violation of 8 subsection A of this section that occurs before January 1, 2008. A second 9 violation of this section shall be based only on an unauthorized alien who is 10 or was employed by the employer after an action has been brought for a 11 violation of subsection A of this section or section 23-212, subsection A. 12 E. For any action in superior court under this section, the court 13 shall expedite the action, including assigning the hearing at the earliest 14 practicable date. 15 F. On a finding of a violation of subsection A of this section: 16 1. For a first violation, as described in paragraph 3 of this 17 subsection, the court shall: 18 (a) Order the employer to terminate the employment of all unauthorized 19 aliens. 20 (b) Order the employer to be subject to a five year probationary 21 period for the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work. 22 During the probationary period the employer shall file quarterly reports in 23 the form provided in section 23-722.01 with the county attorney of each new 24 employee who is hired by the employer at the business location where the 25 unauthorized alien performed work. 26 (c) Order the appropriate agencies to suspend all licenses described 27 in subdivision (d) of this paragraph that are held by the employer for a 28 minimum of ten days. The court shall base its decision on the length of the 29 suspension under this subdivision on any evidence or information submitted to 30 it during the action for a violation of this subsection and shall consider 31 the following factors, if relevant: 32 (i) The number of unauthorized aliens employed by the employer. 33 (ii) Any prior misconduct by the employer. 34 (iii) The degree of harm resulting from the violation. 35 (iv) Whether the employer made good faith efforts to comply with any 36 applicable requirements. 37 (v) The duration of the violation. 38 (vi) The role of the directors, officers or principals of the employer 39 in the violation. 40 (vii) Any other factors the court deems appropriate. 41 (d) Order the employer to file a signed sworn affidavit with the 42 county attorney. The affidavit shall state that the employer has terminated 43 the employment of all unauthorized aliens in this state and that the employer 44 will not intentionally or knowingly employ an unauthorized alien in this 45 state. The court shall order the appropriate agencies to suspend all S.B. 1070 - 12 - 1 licenses subject to this subdivision that are held by the employer if the 2 employer fails to file a signed sworn affidavit with the county attorney 3 within three business days after the order is issued. All licenses that are 4 suspended under this subdivision for failing to file a signed sworn affidavit 5 shall remain suspended until the employer files a signed sworn affidavit with 6 the county attorney. For the purposes of this subdivision, the licenses that 7 are subject to suspension under this subdivision are all licenses that are 8 held by the employer specific to the business location where the unauthorized 9 alien performed work. If the employer does not hold a license specific to 10 the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work, but a 11 license is necessary to operate the employer's business in general, the 12 licenses that are subject to suspension under this subdivision are all 13 licenses that are held by the employer at the employer's primary place of 14 business. On receipt of the court's order and notwithstanding any other law, 15 the appropriate agencies shall suspend the licenses according to the court's 16 order. The court shall send a copy of the court's order to the attorney 17 general and the attorney general shall maintain the copy pursuant to 18 subsection G of this section. 19 2. For a second violation, as described in paragraph 3 of this 20 subsection, the court shall order the appropriate agencies to permanently 21 revoke all licenses that are held by the employer specific to the business 22 location where the unauthorized alien performed work. If the employer does 23 not hold a license specific to the business location where the unauthorized 24 alien performed work, but a license is necessary to operate the employer's 25 business in general, the court shall order the appropriate agencies to 26 permanently revoke all licenses that are held by the employer at the 27 employer's primary place of business. On receipt of the order and 28 notwithstanding any other law, the appropriate agencies shall immediately 29 revoke the licenses. 30 3. The violation shall be considered: 31 (a) A first violation by an employer at a business location if the 32 violation did not occur during a probationary period ordered by the court 33 under this subsection or section 23-212, subsection F for that employer's 34 business location. 35 (b) A second violation by an employer at a business location if the 36 violation occurred during a probationary period ordered by the court under 37 this subsection or section 23-212, subsection F for that employer's business 38 location. 39 G. The attorney general shall maintain copies of court orders that are 40 received pursuant to subsection F of this section and shall maintain a 41 database of the employers and business locations that have a first violation 42 of subsection A of this section and make the court orders available on the 43 attorney general's website. 44 H. On determining whether an employee is an unauthorized alien, the 45 court shall consider only the federal government's determination pursuant to S.B. 1070 - 13 - 1 8 United States Code section 1373(c). The federal government's determination 2 creates a rebuttable presumption of the employee's lawful status. The court 3 may take judicial notice of the federal government's determination and may 4 request the federal government to provide automated or testimonial 5 verification pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c). 6 I. For the purposes of this section, proof of verifying the employment 7 authorization of an employee through the e-verify program creates a 8 rebuttable presumption that an employer did not intentionally employ an 9 unauthorized alien. 10 J. For the purposes of this section, an employer that establishes that 11 it has complied in good faith with the requirements of 8 United States Code 12 section 1324a(b) establishes an affirmative defense that the employer did not 13 intentionally employ an unauthorized alien. An employer is considered to 14 have complied with the requirements of 8 United States Code section 1324a(b), 15 notwithstanding an isolated, sporadic or accidental technical or procedural 16 failure to meet the requirements, if there is a good faith attempt to comply 17 with the requirements. 18 K. IT IS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO A VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION A OF THIS 19 SECTION THAT THE EMPLOYER WAS ENTRAPPED. TO CLAIM ENTRAPMENT, THE EMPLOYER 20 MUST ADMIT BY THE EMPLOYER'S TESTIMONY OR OTHER EVIDENCE THE SUBSTANTIAL 21 ELEMENTS OF THE VIOLATION. AN EMPLOYER WHO ASSERTS AN ENTRAPMENT DEFENSE HAS 22 THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE FOLLOWING BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE: 23 1. THE IDEA OF COMMITTING THE VIOLATION STARTED WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT 24 OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS RATHER THAN WITH THE EMPLOYER. 25 2. THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS URGED AND INDUCED THE 26 EMPLOYER TO COMMIT THE VIOLATION. 27 3. THE EMPLOYER WAS NOT PREDISPOSED TO COMMIT THE VIOLATION BEFORE THE 28 LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS URGED AND INDUCED THE EMPLOYER TO 29 COMMIT THE VIOLATION. 30 L. AN EMPLOYER DOES NOT ESTABLISH ENTRAPMENT IF THE EMPLOYER WAS 31 PREDISPOSED TO VIOLATE SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION AND THE LAW ENFORCEMENT 32 OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS MERELY PROVIDED THE EMPLOYER WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO 33 COMMIT THE VIOLATION. IT IS NOT ENTRAPMENT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR 34 THEIR AGENTS MERELY TO USE A RUSE OR TO CONCEAL THEIR IDENTITY. THE CONDUCT 35 OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND THEIR AGENTS MAY BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING 36 IF AN EMPLOYER HAS PROVEN ENTRAPMENT. 37 Sec. 8. Section 23-214, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read: 38 23-214. Verification of employment eligibility; e-verify 39 program; economic development incentives; list of 40 registered employers 41 A. After December 31, 2007, every employer, after hiring an employee, 42 shall verify the employment eligibility of the employee through the e-verify 43 program AND SHALL KEEP A RECORD OF THE VERIFICATION FOR THE DURATION OF THE 44 EMPLOYEE'S EMPLOYMENT OR AT LEAST THREE YEARS, WHICHEVER IS LONGER. S.B. 1070 - 14 - 1 B. In addition to any other requirement for an employer to receive an 2 economic development incentive from a government entity, the employer shall 3 register with and participate in the e-verify program. Before receiving the 4 economic development incentive, the employer shall provide proof to the 5 government entity that the employer is registered with and is participating 6 in the e-verify program. If the government entity determines that the 7 employer is not complying with this subsection, the government entity shall 8 notify the employer by certified mail of the government entity's 9 determination of noncompliance and the employer's right to appeal the 10 determination. On a final determination of noncompliance, the employer shall 11 repay all monies received as an economic development incentive to the 12 government entity within thirty days of the final determination. For the 13 purposes of this subsection: 14 1. "Economic development incentive" means any grant, loan or 15 performance-based incentive from any government entity that is awarded after 16 September 30, 2008. Economic development incentive does not include any tax 17 provision under title 42 or 43. 18 2. "Government entity" means this state and any political subdivision 19 of this state that receives and uses tax revenues. 20 C. Every three months the attorney general shall request from the 21 United States department of homeland security a list of employers from this 22 state that are registered with the e-verify program. On receipt of the list 23 of employers, the attorney general shall make the list available on the 24 attorney general's website. 25 Sec. 9. Section 28-3511, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read: 26 28-3511. Removal and immobilization or impoundment of vehicle 27 A. A peace officer shall cause the removal and either immobilization 28 or impoundment of a vehicle if the peace officer determines that a person is 29 driving the vehicle while any of the following applies: 30 1. The person's driving privilege is suspended or revoked for any 31 reason. 32 2. The person has not ever been issued a valid driver license or 33 permit by this state and the person does not produce evidence of ever having 34 a valid driver license or permit issued by another jurisdiction. This 35 paragraph does not apply to the operation of an implement of husbandry. 36 3. The person is subject to an ignition interlock device requirement 37 pursuant to chapter 4 of this title and the person is operating a vehicle 38 without a functioning certified ignition interlock device. This paragraph 39 does not apply to a person operating an employer's vehicle or the operation 40 of a vehicle due to a substantial emergency as defined in section 28-1464. 41 4. THE PERSON IS IN VIOLATION OF A CRIMINAL OFFENSE AND IS 42 TRANSPORTING, MOVING, CONCEALING, HARBORING OR SHIELDING OR ATTEMPTING TO 43 TRANSPORT, MOVE, CONCEAL, HARBOR OR SHIELD AN ALIEN IN THIS STATE IN A 44 VEHICLE IF THE PERSON KNOWS OR RECKLESSLY DISREGARDS THE FACT THAT THE ALIEN 45 HAS COME TO, HAS ENTERED OR REMAINS IN THE UNITED STATES IN VIOLATION OF LAW. S.B. 1070 - 15 - 1 B. A peace officer shall cause the removal and impoundment of a 2 vehicle if the peace officer determines that a person is driving the vehicle 3 and if all of the following apply: 4 1. The person's driving privilege is canceled, suspended or revoked 5 for any reason or the person has not ever been issued a driver license or 6 permit by this state and the person does not produce evidence of ever having 7 a driver license or permit issued by another jurisdiction. 8 2. The person is not in compliance with the financial responsibility 9 requirements of chapter 9, article 4 of this title. 10 3. The person is driving a vehicle that is involved in an accident 11 that results in either property damage or injury to or death of another 12 person. 13 C. Except as provided in subsection D of this section, while a peace 14 officer has control of the vehicle the peace officer shall cause the removal 15 and either immobilization or impoundment of the vehicle if the peace officer 16 has probable cause to arrest the driver of the vehicle for a violation of 17 section 4-244, paragraph 34 or section 28-1382 or 28-1383. 18 D. A peace officer shall not cause the removal and either the 19 immobilization or impoundment of a vehicle pursuant to subsection C of this 20 section if all of the following apply: 21 1. The peace officer determines that the vehicle is currently 22 registered and that the driver or the vehicle is in compliance with the 23 financial responsibility requirements of chapter 9, article 4 of this title. 24 2. The spouse of the driver is with the driver at the time of the 25 arrest. 26 3. The peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the spouse 27 of the driver: 28 (a) Has a valid driver license. 29 (b) Is not impaired by intoxicating liquor, any drug, a vapor 30 releasing substance containing a toxic substance or any combination of 31 liquor, drugs or vapor releasing substances. 32 (c) Does not have any spirituous liquor in the spouse's body if the 33 spouse is under twenty-one years of age. 34 4. The spouse notifies the peace officer that the spouse will drive 35 the vehicle from the place of arrest to the driver's home or other place of 36 safety. 37 5. The spouse drives the vehicle as prescribed by paragraph 4 of this 38 subsection. 39 E. Except as otherwise provided in this article, a vehicle that is 40 removed and either immobilized or impounded pursuant to subsection A, B or C 41 of this section shall be immobilized or impounded for thirty days. An 42 insurance company does not have a duty to pay any benefits for charges or 43 fees for immobilization or impoundment. 44 F. The owner of a vehicle that is removed and either immobilized or 45 impounded pursuant to subsection A, B or C of this section, the spouse of the S.B. 1070 - 16 - 1 owner and each person identified on the department's record with an interest 2 in the vehicle shall be provided with an opportunity for an immobilization or 3 poststorage hearing pursuant to section 28-3514. 4 Sec. 10. Title 41, chapter 12, article 2, Arizona Revised Statutes, is 5 amended by adding section 41-1724, to read: 6 41-1724. Gang and immigration intelligence team enforcement 7 mission fund 8 THE GANG AND IMMIGRATION INTELLIGENCE TEAM ENFORCEMENT MISSION FUND IS 9 ESTABLISHED CONSISTING OF MONIES DEPOSITED PURSUANT TO SECTION 11-1051 AND 10 MONIES APPROPRIATED BY THE LEGISLATURE. THE DEPARTMENT SHALL ADMINISTER THE 11 FUND. MONIES IN THE FUND ARE SUBJECT TO LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATION AND SHALL 12 BE USED FOR GANG AND IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT AND FOR COUNTY JAIL 13 REIMBURSEMENT COSTS RELATING TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. 14 Sec. 11. Severability, implementation and construction 15 A. If a provision of this act or its application to any person or 16 circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions 17 or applications of the act that can be given effect without the invalid 18 provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this act are 19 severable. 20 B. The terms of this act regarding immigration shall be construed to 21 have the meanings given to them under federal immigration law. 22 C. This act shall be implemented in a manner consistent with federal 23 laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and 24 respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens. 25 Sec. 12. Short title 26 This act may be cited as the "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe 27 Neighborhoods Act".

Freedom rings at Tea Party

By Peg Brady (April 15) As I reached the already vast gathering at the Colorado State Capitol this morning, a speaker proclaimed, “Let freedom ring!” The crowd echoed his joyous words, [photopress:tparty_0415210a.JPG,thumb,pp_image]and the call for freedom did indeed ring across the thronged parkland. Sporting my “I Love TABOR” t-shirt (from Backbone Radio), I added my alto to their cheers.

Unnumbered bright yellow “Don’t Tread on Me” banners waved. Hand-painted posters declared people’s outrage and hope. § Read Hayak’s “Road to Serfdom” § Who is John Galt? § God only asks 10% § Capitalism creates jobs Socialism destroys them § No VAT § Give me liberty, not debt § November is coming

People from the Independence Institute circulated petitions in support of excluding Colorado from Obamacare. Matt Arnold fervently urged voters to “Clear the Bench” by unseating the four state supreme court justices seeking re-election, all liberals who believe themselves entitled to modify our Constitution through judicial rulings. Veterans and moms asked that we each take action.

By definition, we conservatives tend to be independent individuals, not much inclined to joining. That’s part of our personal strength, but it’s also a political weakness. At last, though, the tyranny and excessive taxation, the pointless spending frenzy, the attacks on liberty, the economy, reason and ethics have exceeded our quiet tolerance. We are on the move.

And I thanked God that we live in a blessed country where thousands of us can gather and declare our intent to defend our freedoms and regain our honor.

We're with you, John

By Tom Graham A Letter to Atty. Gen. John Suthers

Thank you for joining the attorneys general in 12 other states to challenge Obamacare on constitutional grounds. Although I don't officially represent a group as spokesman, I can state that all of my many associates and friends believe that the health care bill is unconstitutional from a number of standpoints, especially the policy purchase requirement. Many of these people are quite knowledgeable regarding insurance, and some are attorneys and legitimate constitutional scholars.

I have been lecturing to as many as I can gather about the motivation for the bill's passage. It isn't about health, but is an opening into the public option. The day after passage, leftists were demanding that the "option" be re-installed when the bill returned to the House. This, of course, would quickly result in the end of private insurance, both profit and non-profit. The figure attributing this industry to approximately 1/6 of the economy is verified. Therefore it is a major element of the plan to turn the nation Socialist.

All of the Obama administration actions have fallen to either the Socialist model or the Communist, as per academic definitions. (See my series about this in previoius posts.) We cannot think of any that don't intentionally kill free markets. This bill must be overturned, without waiting for the return of a responsible congress and administration to power. The takeover (Socialist) or central control (Communist) of the basic industries... energy, automobiles, housing, financial services, health insurance, debt defaults, etc., will descend us to the third world.

We all support your pivotal constitutional contest.

Vietnam: Hinge of Fate

Thoughts on Lewis Sorley’s A Better WarBy Bill Moloney

In the sixty-five years since the end of World War II the most significant and formative single event in American history- beyond any question- is the Vietnam War. It reshaped our domestic politics, foreign policy, military doctrines, and popular culture in ways that still resonate powerfully nearly two generations after it ended. The Vietnam War was waged not just in the rice paddies of Southeast Asia but also in the streets and campuses of the American homeland. It divided families and regions in a manner not seen since the Civil War. It shattered the Great American Consensus that was forged in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor and that had endured through the first half of the Cold War. Millions of Americans viewed opposition to the war as high idealism, while millions more saw it as bordering on treason.

Politically the Vietnam War ultimately entirely captured the Democratic Party and profoundly influenced the Republican Party. Every military conflict involving U.S. forces since has evoked dire warnings about “another Vietnam”. A recent Newsweek cover story labeled Afghanistan “Obama’s Vietnam”. Our national conversation on foreign policy repeatedly invokes warnings against failure to heed the “lessons of Vietnam”.

What are the “lessons of Vietnam”? The received wisdom that has become embedded in our national consciousness rests principally on three ”truths” : 1. The war was “unwinnable” from the start; 2. Vietnam was a “war of national liberation” in which the Viet Cong were legitimate representatives of the people; 3. The South Vietnamese government were essentially American “puppets” with no popular support or willingness to fight.

Though the American phase of the war in Indochina lasted from 1960 to 1975 in the minds of most Americans the war ended in 1968. The “annus terriblus” of 1968 effected the most dramatic changes in American History since Pearl Harbor. The year began with the momentous “Tet Offensive” which thanks to television was graphically brought into nearly every American living room. What shocked Americans saw was not “light at the end of the tunnel” but a savagely determined enemy attacking virtually every corner of South Vietnam even including the American Embassy compound in Saigon.

In short order following the perceived calamity of “Tet” the revered sage of America’s media Walter Cronkite declared the war a “stalemate” (“They won’t quit, and we can’t win”). Eugene McCarthy, and then Robert Kennedy entered the Democratic primaries on an anti-war platform intending to overthrow the sitting President of their own party, and with great suddenness the presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson collapsed amidst the wreckage of his Vietnam policy. Additional high drama- King and Kennedy assassinations, race riots, Kids versus Cops in Chicago- punctuated a tumultuous presidential campaign in which both parties competed over who had the best plan to get out of Vietnam.

After 1968 as President Nixon’s “Vietnamization” policy accelerated, American troops and casualties diminished rapidly, and media coverage of the war declined proportionately. America’s last memorable snapshot of Vietnam was of those desperate people clinging to the skids of the last helicopter lifting off the roof of the American Embassy as the victorious North Vietnamese overran the entire country. That event in 1975 seemed to put the final seal on the first “lost war” in U.S. History.

Though there was little general interest at the time, and even less among subsequent historians the question remains: What happened during those final seven years and should it matter to us?

All of which brings us to an examination of Lewis Sorley’s masterful history A Better War: The Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of America’s Last Years in Vietnam.

First appearing in 1999 Sorley’s book received limited attention even though – or perhaps because- it seriously challenged the conventional wisdom regarding the “lost war”. Nonetheless, given its’ highly impressive research base- tapping heretofore untouched primary sources- and simple but compellingly argued thesis the book was respectfully reviewed even by traditionally liberal outlets such as the New York Times (“ a comprehensive and long overdue examination of the immediate post-Tet offensive years”) and the Washington Post (“the post-1968 war clearly deserves more attention and a more positive appraisal than most historians have given it. A Better War helps fill the gap.”)

Foreign Affairs described the book as “Forcefully and convincingly argued… a provocative and important contribution to the history of the Vietnam War” and the Wall St. Journal noted that “the successes in 1968-72 period have disappeared down the memory hole. Lewis Sorley fills in those blanks with his important new book”.

A Better War has received a new prominence in recent years because of its great relevance to the American challenges in both Iraq and Afghanistan. David Ignatius of the Washington Post called it “the hot book among Iraq strategists” and noted its presence on the bookshelves of senior military officers in Baghdad and in the speeches of Condoleezza Rice.

A third generation graduate of West Point who also holds a doctorate in history form Johns Hopkins university, Lewis Sorley served as a tank commander in Vietnam and on staff at the Pentagon. He later was a senior civilian official at the Central Intelligence Agency, and since retirement has been the author of several well received military histories focusing on Vietnam.

At its heart A Better War is about one horrible mistake that brought catastrophe to America and Vietnam, and one extraordinary man who heroically came very close to redeeming that mistake.

The mistake was the appointment and sustaining of General William Westmoreland as supreme U.S. commander in Vietnam (1964-68). Westmoreland will go down in U.S. history as the most disastrous senior commander since George Mc Clellan led the Union armies in the Civil War. McClellan very nearly lost the Civil War for Abraham Lincoln. Westmoreland did lose the Vietnam War for Lyndon Johnson.

Westmoreland was selected from a list of four senior generals submitted to Johnson in January 1964. He owed his appointment to a chance fortuitous encounter with John F. Kennedy and the behind the scenes machinations of General Maxwell Taylor.

The three generals who were passed over all were advocates of and would have pursued a Vietnam strategy called “clear and hold”. Westmoreland thought differently. He inaugurated and for four years doggedly pursued a strategy called “search and destroy” predicated on the notion that if you killed enough enemy soldiers (hence the infamous “body counts”) they would eventually give up. To achieve this goal Westmoreland constantly asked for- and almost to the end always got- “more troops”. However even when he commanded over half a million men Westmoreland found that North Vietnam was replacing its soldiers even faster than he could kill them. The Tet Offensive was but the final and very public demonstration of the total bankruptcy of Westmoreland’s “search and destroy” strategy. David Halberstam’s classic The Best and the Brightest brilliantly chronicles this failure and the foolhardiness of the senior officials- L.B.J., McNamara, Taylor, etc.- who supported it.

The bulk of Sorley’s book commences its account of the war at precisely the point where most American people and politicians had concluded that it was a lost cause. It revolves around that extraordinary man who came very close to retrieving the colossal blunders of Westmoreland and his superiors, and in fact very close to winning the “lost war” outright.

That man was Creighton W. Abrams (1914-1974) who succeeded Westmoreland in 1968 and served four years as American commander in Vietnam. Though the war would be lost-not for military but for political reasons- after Abrams departure in 1972 his accomplishments during his four year tenure distinguish him as the greatest American commander since World War II.

In 1944 the brilliant though egomaniacal General George Patton said “They say I am the best tank commander in the U.S. army, but I have one peer-Abe Abrams”. Building on his magnificent performance in the Battle of the Bulge which occasioned Patton’s high praise, Abrams served with distinction through twenty years, and in 1964 was one of the three men LBJ passed over to appoint Westmoreland.

In mid 1968 Abrams succeeded Westmoreland and immediately implemented a dramatic change in both strategy and tactics. He abandoned “search and destroy” with its costly large unit sweeps through the remoter and thinly populated regions of Vietnam.

Abrams decided to let the enemy come to him and fight him while protecting the Vietnamese people. Instead of the large unit actions where the enemy always knew what the Americans were up to and thus could always choose points of battle favorable to them, Abrams substituted constant “patrolling” by large numbers of small units (5 to 10 men) that continually probed the countryside gathering intelligence from local people, and destroying enemy supply caches and generally disrupting the foe’s movements before he could concentrate.

Tet had been a propaganda triumph for the communists but a military disaster. The price they paid was the near total destruction of the indigenous Viet Cong. Thereafter-as Abrams knew-all enemy soldiers and supplies had to come from North Vietnam through Laos and Cambodia via the “Ho Chi Minh Trail”. Accordingly Abrams gave high priority to sharply upgrading both human and electronic intelligence so that soon Americans knew in great detail the movements of the thousands of Chinese and Russian made trucks ferrying men and supplies from North Vietnam. After 1968 the sharply increased volume and accuracy of American precision bombing at all junction points along the Ho Chi Minh Trail had devastating effect on North Vietnam’s ability to sustain its war effort.

Very soon after the 1968 U.S. Presidential election Abrams knew that Richard Nixon’s plan for Vietnam involved a responsible but rapid draw-down of the 543,000 American soldiers under his command. Thus in Abrams view he had a specific “window of opportunity” to win the war- always his main objective- and hand over responsibility for the security of the country to a South Vietnamese government and military that could successfully maintain it at the very same time his army was heading home. (Does anyone doubt how closely Generals Petraeus and McChrystal read this book?)

Westmoreland had essentially decided that Americans could win without much help from the South Vietnamese to whom he gave inadequate support and less respect. Abrams took the opposite approach. He knew that in the end the South Vietnamese would have to do the job without much help from the Americans. Accordingly he sought to gain their trust by offering a full measure of support and respect.

In pursuing his tasks Abrams was fortunate to gain two extraordinary partners within the same year he arrived.

Ellsworth Bunker, a courtly low-key septuagenarian international businessman turned diplomat replaced the often overbearing and manipulative Maxwell Taylor as U.S. Ambassador to South Vietnam and rapidly built a trusting and respectful relationship with the country’s President Nguyen Van Thieu.

Soon after taking command Abrams fired Robert Komer, the erratic and arrogant head of the rural pacification program and replaced him with the highly talented William Colby, a career CIA officer who would later head that Agency. Colby entirely reconstituted the pacification and strategic hamlet program and launched Operation Phoenix which rooted out the Viet Cong’s “shadow government” and in close cooperation with President Thieu swiftly spread an umbrella of security, support, and land redistribution throughout South Vietnam’s countryside.

Together for four years this highly simpatico trio gave the American effort in Vietnam a cohesion, energy, imagination, and deep sense of mission that had been entirely lacking in the Westmoreland era.

Central to their achievement was the vital growth of the popularity, effectiveness, and military capacity of the South Vietnamese government as it gradually and successfully took up the daunting challenge of standing on its own in the wake of the rapidly accelerating American troop withdrawals.

By 1971 Ambassador Bunker could report his ability to travel throughout the countryside in an unescorted open Jeep- always wearing his signature suit and tie –for days without seeing any evidence of communist activity, and he also reported that the million plus residents of Saigon “enjoyed a higher level of safety, law and order than their counterparts in Los Angeles or Chicago.”

Abrams took particular pride in the continued high morale and effectiveness of U.S. troops even as their numbers dwindled. He greatly resented the misleading media stories about rampant problems regarding drugs and race relations, and pointed to surveys showing that such problems among soldiers in Vietnam were significantly less than among service personnel serving elsewhere in the world and markedly less than among comparable populations in the United States.

Abrams was also at pains to debunk the media myth that the Vietnam War was largely fought by draftees from the underclass. Of the 2.6 million men who served in the Vietnam theatre fully two thirds were volunteers and demographically almost a perfect reflection of the U.S. population as a whole. Surveys taken at the time and even twenty years later after the war had been lost showed, that U.S. soldiers overwhelmingly took pride in their service and regarded their mission as an important cause.

By 1972 Abrams command was down to a mere 49,000 soldiers. He wryly noted that it was the first time an American army had gone home and left its commander behind.

In contrast South Vietnam had 1.1 million men under arms. In another major departure from the Westmoreland era Abrams gave high priority to seeing that the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) received high quality equipment and training.

The dramatically improved ARVN fighting qualities and their ability to hold their own against North Vietnamese regulars was shown clearly in the two largest set piece battles of the entire war. The first –Lam Son 719- in the spring of 1971 saw tens of thousands of ARVN troops entering the Laotian panhandle unaccompanied by any U.S. ground personnel to interdict a major North Vietnamese offensive aimed at the South. At the height of the battle the two armies had over 100,000 men in the field. The ARVN was severely mauled but the losses sustained by the North Vietnamese Army (NVA) were so severe that they were unable to launch any further offensive activity for the remainder of 1971.

The second major battle was the Easter offensive of 1972 which the NVA launched directly across the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) in South Vietnam. This proved to be an even more devastating defeat for the NVA which suffered over 100,000 casualties-about 40,000 killed – and lost over half its tanks and artillery. These losses were so severe that the NVA was unable to launch another major offensive for three years, and also led to the removal of the NVA’s legendary commander General Vo Nguyen Giap.

While the might of U.S. air power-from helicopters to B-52 bombers- was a critical difference maker for ARVN, these troops again and again showed themselves in combat to be as tough and tenacious as their enemy.

While the focus of A Better War is on events in Vietnam, the book like the war itself unfolds against the critical backdrop of the political situation in the United States and the ongoing peace negotiations in Paris.

By the end of 1972 Richard Nixon’s “Vietnamization” policy had achieved a remarkable level of success. Ninety percent of the 543,000 American troops serving when he took office had been withdrawn from Vietnam; their combat role successfully taken over by ARVN troops. Vietnam had been pacified, the government of President Thieu enjoyed wide popular support, and had shown it was capable of defending itself against North Vietnamese aggression.

In giving Nixon a landslide re-election victory over Democrat George Mc Govern the American people affirmed their support for the former’s approach to ending the war on honorable terms.

Absolutely essential to sustaining the success of “Vietnamization” was America’s determination to continue strong logistical and financial support for South Vietnam much as we had done for South Korea.

When North Vietnam withdrew from the Paris peace negotiations in December 1972, Nixon demonstrated such determination by ordering resumed B-52 bombing of rail yards, marshalling areas, petroleum storage facilities, missile storage sites, docks and warehouses in the Hanoi- Haiphong area. North Vietnam’s official history- which Sorley utilized extensively- conceded that “Nixon proved extremely obstinate and reckless, and did things Johnson never dared to do”.

After eleven days bombing Hanoi reversed their bargaining position and on December 28th announced they would return to the peace talks.

Describing what he called the “ultimate irony” historian George Herring stated that “the U.S. position in South Vietnam was stronger at the end of 1972 than at any previous point in the war.” Respected Vietnam authority Sir Robert Thompson said that the U.S. at this point could have dictated peace terms and that “the war could have been won, in that a real and enforceable peace could have been obtained”. He further added “In my view, on December 30, 1972, after eleven days of those B-52 attacks on the Hanoi area, you had won the war. It was over!”

So, if the “unwinnable” war had been won- confirmed by the signing of the Paris Peace Accord on January 27, 1973- how was “defeat snatched from the jaws of victory?”

Sorley answers this question persuasively by using the words of North Vietnamese leaders as found in their extensive memoirs and official histories. Ever since the U.S. domestic upheavals of 1968 North Vietnam’s leadership saw U.S. political turmoil as their best hope of victory. NVA Colonel Bui Tin wrote how “Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American anti-war movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda and former a

Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses.” The North Vietnamese were also keenly aware of the Democratic controlled Congress’ visceral antipathy toward Richard Nixon, a sentiment strongly shared by American media and intellectuals.

Though all American troops were gone soon after the signing of the Peace Accords, and the NVA – in violation of the Accords- almost immediately began launching attacks, the South Vietnamese more than held their own. As U.S. observer Major General Ira Hunt reported “for about two years (1973-74) the ARVN were cleaning their clocks. The South Vietnamese were giving more than they were getting, there’s no question about it. But when we pulled the plug logistically there was no way they could carry on.”

And “pull the plug “ was exactly what the Democratic Congress did in rapidly escalating budget cuts during the same two year period until by early 1975 all support- from air power to money- was completely cut off- all this at the very same time that both Russia and China were dramatically increasing their support and supply for North Vietnam.

The Democrats ability to do this so completely was greatly facilitated by the political destruction of Richard Nixon by the Watergate scandal of 1973-74. As the NVA’s Colonel Bui Tin observed, the resignation of Nixon on August 9, 1974 was final proof to North Vietnam’s leaders that they would win the war.

Though ARVN fought valiantly in the final six months of the war, at the end many of their troops were reduced to having to purchase their own bullets and grenades, while their enemy bombarded them with a limitless supply of artillery shells made in Russia and China. This led Sir Robert Thompson to observe “that perhaps the major lesson of the Vietnam War is: do not rely on the United States as an ally.”

The title of Sorley’s book comes from an observation made in Saigon in 1969 by the New Yorker correspondent Robert Shaplen: “You know its too bad. Abrams is very good. He deserves a better war.” Many years after the war ended someone reminded the eldest of Abram’s three sons –all army officers- of Shaplen’s remark. Without hesitation young Creighton replied “He didn’t see it that way. He thought the Vietnamese were worth it.”

Among other things Sorley’s superb book is a rumination on the element of chance in history. What if the general LBJ selected in 1964 was Abrams not Westmoreland. What if Abrams had successfully pursued his preferred strategy in the four years prior to 1968 when the American people, the Congress, the Democratic Party, and even the media supported the war rather the four years after 1968 when all of the above had essentially given up.

How different might the outcome have been for a still polarized American Society? How different for the 58,000 Americans who died in Vietnam, or the 275,000 ARVN killed in action, the 465,000 dead civilians, the 65,000 executed by their liberators, the 250,000 who perished in the brutal “re-education camps”, or the 2,000,000 who became refugees?

When another great war hung in the balance Winston Churchill memorably observed that “the terrible ifs accumulate.” America today is still haunted by the terrible ifs of Vietnam. ______________________________________________________________________

William Moloney’s columns have appeared in the Wall St. Journal, USA Today, Washington Post, Washington Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, Baltimore Sun, Denver Post, Rocky Mountain News, and Human Events.

Note: A Better War is available in paperback from Amazon. com

Sign the Mount Vernon Statement

By John Andrews "We recommit ourselves to the ideas of the American Founding. Through the Constitution, the Founders created an enduring framework of limited government based on the rule of law." So begins the Mount Vernon Statement, an important and timely declaration of principles issued on Feb. 17 by the heads of 16 major conservative organizations. Originating with intellectual leaders on the Right, rather than elected officials and candidates, the statement sets a baseline for thinking patriots in weighing the claims we'll hear from politicians as this 2010 year of decision moves toward election day. If Republicans bring out a new version of the 1994 Contract with America in their hopes for a November sweep against Obama and the Democrats, its worthiness can be measured against this declaration.

The full text is below, taken from their website at TheMountVernonDeclaration.com. By clicking to that site you can also add your name as a signer of the declaration, which I have proudly done.

This manifesto is a worthy descendant from Bill Buckley's famous Sharon Statement of half a century ago, as Greg Schaller points out at '76 Blog. The Sharon Statement and YAF, the Young Americans for Freedom movement which it launched, were formative for me and so many other young conservatives in the turbulent 1960s. Let's hope for an equally profound, powerful, and positive impact from the Mount Vernon Declaration. Here it is...

Constitutional Conservatism: A Statement for the 21st Century

We recommit ourselves to the ideas of the American Founding. Through the Constitution, the Founders created an enduring framework of limited government based on the rule of law. They sought to secure national independence, provide for economic opportunity, establish true religious liberty and maintain a flourishing society of republican self-government.

These principles define us as a country and inspire us as a people. They are responsible for a prosperous, just nation unlike any other in the world. They are our highest achievements, serving not only as powerful beacons to all who strive for freedom and seek self-government, but as warnings to tyrants and despots everywhere.

Each one of these founding ideas is presently under sustained attack. In recent decades, America’s principles have been undermined and redefined in our culture, our universities and our politics. The selfevident truths of 1776 have been supplanted by the notion that no such truths exist. The federal government today ignores the limits of the Constitution, which is increasingly dismissed as obsolete and irrelevant.

Some insist that America must change, cast off the old and put on the new. But where would this lead — forward or backward, up or down? Isn’t this idea of change an empty promise or even a dangerous deception?

The change we urgently need, a change consistent with the American ideal, is not movement away from but toward our founding principles. At this important time, we need a restatement of Constitutional conservatism grounded in the priceless principle of ordered liberty articulated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

The conservatism of the Declaration asserts self-evident truths based on the laws of nature and nature’s God. It defends life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It traces authority to the consent of the governed. It recognizes man’s self-interest but also his capacity for virtue.

The conservatism of the Constitution limits government’s powers but ensures that government performs its proper job effectively. It refines popular will through the filter of representation. It provides checks and balances through the several branches of government and a federal republic.

A Constitutional conservatism unites all conservatives through the natural fusion provided by American principles. It reminds economic conservatives that morality is essential to limited government, social conservatives that unlimited government is a threat to moral self-government, and national security conservatives that energetic but responsible government is the key to America’s safety and leadership role in the world.

A Constitutional conservatism based on first principles provides the framework for a consistent and meaningful policy agenda.

It applies the principle of limited government based on the rule of law to every proposal.

It honors the central place of individual liberty in American politics and life.

It encourages free enterprise, the individual entrepreneur, and economic reforms grounded in market solutions.

It supports America’s national interest in advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world and prudently considers what we can and should do to that end.

It informs conservatism’s firm defense of family, neighborhood, community, and faith.

If we are to succeed in the critical political and policy battles ahead, we must be certain of our purpose.

We must begin by retaking and resolutely defending the high ground of America’s founding principles.

February 17, 2010

Edwin Meese, former U.S. Attorney General under President Reagan

Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America

Edwin Feulner, Jr., president of the Heritage Foundation

Lee Edwards, Distinguished Fellow in Conservative Thought at the Heritage Foundation, was present at the Sharon Statement signing.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council

Becky Norton Dunlop, president of the Council for National Policy

Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center

Alfred Regnery, publisher of the American Spectator

David Keene, president of the American Conservative Union

David McIntosh, co-founder of the Federalist Society

T. Kenneth Cribb, former domestic policy adviser to President Reagan

Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform

William Wilson, President, Americans for Limited Government

Elaine Donnelly, Center for Military Readiness

Richard Viguerie, Chairman, ConservativeHQ.com

Kenneth Blackwell, Coalition for a Conservative Majority

Colin Hanna, President, Let Freedom Ring

Kathryn J. Lopez, National Review