Cameron: Labour has lost its mandate to govern

London, England (News Today) - If the predictions are borne out by results, the UK is heading for a "hung parliament" in which no single party controls an overall majority.

The leader of the largest party traditionally gets the first chance to form the government and become prime minister. But if no party has a majority, the sitting prime minister has the right to stay in office and try to win a confidence motion in parliament.

"The sitting prime minister and the incumbent government are given the first chance to create a majority that commands the confidence of the House of Commons, and if they fail to do that it passes to the leader of the opposition," top Labour politician Peter Mandelson told CNN.

Several high-profile incumbents lost their seats overnight, including former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, of Labour; Northern Ireland First Minister Peter Robinson, leader of the Democratic Unionist party; and Liberal Democrat Lembit Opik, who had been in parliament for 13 years.

All had been implicated in last year's parliamentary expenses scandal. Robinson's loss could hurt the Conservatives, robbing them of a potential supporter in the Commons should the party need to form a coalition.

The Green Party, which favors environmental and social justice policies, gained its first-ever member of parliament when Caroline Lucas was elected in Brighton, in southern England.

There were some scenes of voter anger across the country over long lines to cast ballots or polling stations running out of ballot papers, but it was not immediately clear how widespread problems were.

Anger at polling stations

"We will be doing a serious and thorough review of this and making recommendations to parliament and the government," Electoral Commission Chairwoman Jenny Watson said.

The United Kingdom's system of voting is "Victorian, antiquated, left over from an era when less people had to vote" and not designed to cope with mass participation, she said, adding that the system is now "at breaking point."

Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg expressed his anger after hundreds of voters were turned away from a polling station in his Sheffield constituency.

"I share the bitter dismay of many of my constituents who weren't able to exercise their democratic right to vote at this election," he said. "It is not right that hundreds found themselves unable to vote -- and that is something should never ever happen again in our democracy."

Clearly disappointed by his party's showing as results filtered in, he added: "This has obviously been a disappointing night for the lib-dems -- we haven't achieved what we hoped. But I think we conducted a positive campaign full of optimism."

It's very unusual for no party to get an absolute majority of seats in the Commons. The last time it happened, in 1974, voters were back at the polls within months.

After the election there will be 650 seats in the Commons, four more than in the previous parliament. Voters chose representatives for only 649 seats, however, because the death of a candidate in northern England postponed that election to May 27, local officials said.

Under the British electoral system, the candidate who receives the most votes in a constituency wins. The system, known as "first past the post," is praised for its simplicity and the strong ties it forms between voters and representatives, but critics dislike its failure to provide proportional representation.

Source : CNN

Read More

Arizona governor signs changes into immigration law

(News Terupdate) - Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed a bill Friday that makes changes to a controversial new state immigration law, saying the changes should ease concerns about racial profiling.

"These changes specifically answer legal questions raised by some who expressed fears that the original law would somehow allow or lead to racial profiling," Brewer said in a statement after the signing. "These new amendments make it crystal clear and undeniable that racial profiling is illegal and will not be tolerated in Arizona."

But opponents challenged that assertion in the run-up to Brewer's signing of the changes into law on Friday.

"It doesn't deter anything," said Dan Pochoda, legal director of the Arizona ACLU. "It's not a serious hurdle."

Pochoda said that law enforcement officers -- under strong pressure to find and remove illegal immigrants -- could still identify people by race and then look for a minor infraction as an excuse to investigate them.

He noted that the authors of the immigration law, passed April 23, also backed the changes to it.

The new Arizona law requires immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times and requires police to question people if there is reason to suspect they are in the United States illegally.

Under the law, police would be able to detain an individual based merely on the suspicion that he or she entered the country illegally. But one of the changes -- which had been adopted by state lawmakers Thursday night -- says police could stop suspected illegal immigrants only while enforcing some other law or ordinance.

An officer could only ask about an immigrant's legal status, for example, while investigating that person for speeding, loitering or some other offense.

The new law also makes it a state crime to live in or travel through Arizona illegally. And it targets those who hire illegal immigrant day laborers or knowingly transport them.

University of Arizona law professor Gabriel Chin told CNN that the changes to the bill are significant, insofar as they help remove a "huge disincentive for victims and witnesses to cooperate with the police."

Under the original version of the law, he said, police officers would have been obligated to arrest a suspected illegal immigrant who approached them after being victimized. That would not be the case under the revised law.

Arizona's law originally said that the attorney general or a county attorney cannot investigate complaints based "solely" on factors such as a person's race, color or national origin. The changes enacted Friday remove the word "solely" to emphasize that prosecutors must have some reason other than an individual's race or national origin to investigate.

But Chin dismissed the significance of that change. Both the federal and state constitutions make it clear that you can "never stop someone exclusively on account of race," he said.

Racial profiling would still occur, he said. "It's always 'race plus' in these situations. ... The law still allows the consideration of race as a factor."

Defenders of the law -- angry over the charges of racism permeating the debate -- say it is needed because the federal government has failed to enforce border security with Mexico, allowing hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants to move into in the state.

"Illegal is illegal," Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce, the controversial statute's primary sponsor, told CNN Friday. "Illegal's not a race, it's a crime. ... And in Arizona, we're going to enforce" the law.

Pearce accused President Barack Obama, a critic of the measure, of "aiding and abetting criminal activity, inciting criminal activity, inciting violence, and [violating his] oath of office to secure this border, enforce these laws and defend the American people."

Some analysts said that Arizona was compelled to adopt the amendments in reaction to a growing movement among civil rights activists and others to launch an economic boycott of the state. On Friday, two San Francisco, California, officials wrote a three-page letter to Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig to ask that the 2011 All-Star Game be moved from Phoenix, Arizona, if the law is not repealed.

The overall law has drawn sharp scrutiny from the Justice Department, at least two lawsuits and condemnation from the Mexican government and other Latin American nations. Several prominent entertainers also have spoken out against the measure.

An April 27-28 nationwide Gallup poll, however, found that 51 percent of Americans favor the Arizona law, while only 39 percent oppose it.

The changes to the law are not sufficient and will do little to positively affect daily law enforcement in Arizona, argued Clarissa Martinez De Castro of the National Council of La Raza, a major Latino civil rights organization.

"Even right now, without this law, we know that the practice on the streets is different," she told CNN. "The [current] practice doesn't reflect what the law is. And if the governor is saying that racial profiling is not going to be tolerated, why has it been tolerated so far?"

About 500,000 unauthorized immigrants were believed to live in Arizona in 2008, and 11.9 million nationwide, up from 3.5 million nationwide in 1990, according to a Pew Hispanic Center report published in 2009.

Protests against the Arizona law are scheduled Saturday in at least 21 states, the District of Columbia and two Canadian provinces. In all, protests are planned for 47 cities.

The changes to the law will take effect along with the rest of the statute in 90 days.

"It goes back to the federal government," Martinez told CNN. "If they abdicate their responsibility, they leave state and local governments to grapple with this issue, and the only thing that happens is that we create greater chaos. ... This is just not the way forward."

Source : CNN

Read More

Oklahoma Senate overrides governor's vetoes to pass abortion laws

(News Terupdate) - The Oklahoma Senate voted Tuesday to override the governor's vetoes and pass two strong anti-abortion measures.

One law requires women to undergo an ultrasound examination and listen to a description of what it shows before getting an abortion.

Senate President Pro Tempore Glenn Coffee, a Republican, said Tuesday's vote shows lawmakers listened to Oklahoma's residents and "made a bold statement in support of the sanctity of life." But Democratic Gov. Brad Henry has called the legislation "an unconstitutional attempt by the Oklahoma legislature to insert government into the private lives and decisions of its citizens."

Henry vetoed the bill and another abortion-related measure Friday, but the state House on Monday overwhelmingly voted to override both vetoes, with House Speaker Chris Benge, a Republican, lauding his colleagues for moving quickly. The Senate's 36-12 vote Tuesday was the final step required to make the bills laws

"Those who rallied behind this cause reflected the core values of Oklahoma citizens, and I applaud my colleagues in providing more safeguards for the life of the unborn," Coffee said.

Henry said he was disappointed by Tuesday's vote.

"It signals the beginning of another costly and possibly futile legal battle for the state of Oklahoma. Both laws will be challenged and, in all likelihood, overturned by the courts as unconstitutional," he said. "I fear this entire exercise will ultimately be a waste of taxpayers' time and money."

In a statement issued after his vetoes Friday, Henry sharply criticized the laws.

"State policymakers should never mandate that a citizen be forced to undergo any medical procedure against his or her will, especially when such a procedure could cause physical or mental trauma," Henry said. "To do so amounts to an unconstitutional invasion of privacy."

Henry said one of the flaws of the ultrasound bill was that it lacked an exemption for rape and incest victims.

Henry vetoed similar legislation in 2008. His veto was overridden. The State Supreme Court struck down the legislation because it contained multiple subjects, a violation of the state Constitution requiring measures to deal with a single subject, Bennett said.

The Center for Reproductive Rights said it had filed a lawsuit challenging the new law after Tuesday's Senate vote.

"Oklahoma has now passed the most burdensome ultrasound law in the country," Nancy Northup, the organization's president, told CNN. "Until Oklahoma stops harassing women who are seeking abortions, we will continue to sue the state on these unconstitutional restrictions."

Coffee said challenging the new laws in court would go against what Oklahoma residents want.

"The voice of the people has spoken twice now this session in the Senate and twice in the House, and I sincerely hope those who would reverse the people's voice would think twice before acting," he said.

The other measure approved by legislators Tuesday prohibits pregnant women and their families from seeking legal damages if physicians "knowingly and negligently" withhold key information or provide inaccurate information about their pregnancies.

Henry, in opposing the bill, said it would be "unconscionable to grant a physician legal protection to mislead or misinform a pregnant woman in an effort to impose his or her personal beliefs on his patient."

Such an issue would be particularly relevant to fetuses with disabilities.

"By prohibiting recovery of damages in wrongful birth and life malpractice actions, the legislation would allow unscrupulous, reckless or negligent physicians to knowingly withhold information or negligently provide inaccurate information to pregnant women without facing the potential of legal consequences," the governor said.

The House voted to override the veto of the ultrasound bill by an 81 to 14 vote, well above the three-fourths majority required. State Rep. Lisa Billy, a Republican, said the bill "does nothing more than give women as much information as possible before they make the life-altering decision to have an abortion."

"I don't want a single woman to go through the lifelong torture of having an abortion without having all the relevant information," Billy said.

The House voted 84 to 12 to override the veto over the legal damages prohibition. State Rep. Dan Sullivan, a Republican, said the bill "simply states that a doctor cannot be sued based on the opinion after birth that a child would have been better off if he or she had been aborted."

"A bipartisan coalition of members supported this bill the first time, and I am pleased they did again today," Sullivan said.

Benge, the House speaker, said, "We must move to stop the degradation of human life seen in recent years and stand up for those who cannot defend themselves."

Source : CNN

Read More

Huge risks of Arizona immigration law

(News Terupdate) - With her signature Friday on Senate Bill 1070, Gov. Jan Brewer launched Arizona into a maelstrom of national controversy, community conflict and extreme fiscal risk.

In doing so, she failed a basic test of courageous leadership -- recognizing and acting responsibly when political symbolism and populist pandering crosses into dangerous policy. The governor should have known better, if only because recent history demonstrates the folly in enacting measures like Arizona's SB 1070.

SB 1070 will be subject to multiple legal challenges, and the state will devote precious resources to defend a law that has so many serious constitutional flaws that it will likely never be implemented. The neighboring state of California faced this circumstance 15 years ago when Gov. Pete Wilson championed Proposition 187, enacted by voters in November 1994.

Over half a dozen lawsuits were on file within days of the law's passage. A federal court soon enjoined all but two minor sections of the initiative, and the vast bulk of the law never took effect.

Yet, California not only paid a lot of state lawyers to defend these suits -- and ultimately paid much of the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees as well -- but also had to divert bureaucrats throughout state government from their other tasks to analyze and plan how to implement a law that could never be implemented. Today, California could certainly use the tens of millions of dollars expended so many years ago vainly defending Proposition 187.

Moreover, even though Proposition 187 was never implemented, California suffered other repercussions besides the waste of limited state financial resources. Community conflict increased as some interpreted the initiative's passage as license for private individuals to harass and interrogate those they believed to be undocumented, which then, as now, was usually based on racial stereotype.

In addition, support of Proposition 187 did not help Pete Wilson's political career, as naturalizations rose and an increasing number of angry Latino voters mobilized to oppose the governor and the political party that championed such a negative initiative. Today, so many years later, the political sins of Wilson continue to be visited upon the heads of California politicians from his political party.

Coincidentally, Arizona's SB 1070 suffers from many of the same constitutional flaws as California's Proposition 187. In particular, the claim that felled the California initiative applies in even greater measure to the Arizona bill. The federal court struck down Proposition 187 as an unconstitutional attempt to regulate immigration, which is a role that belongs exclusively to the federal government.

SB 1070 is an even more direct attempt to establish the state's own immigration law and enforcement scheme. Indeed, what we have seen since Friday is the usual pivot by those who propose and support unconstitutional laws like SB 1070.

Sen. Russell Pearce and others who support the bill are now arguing it does nothing but reiterate existing federal law and that the law is legitimate because police officers always had "inherent authority" to enforce federal immigration law. Their assertions are dubious as a legal matter because of the very weak support for the "inherent authority" notion and because, in the area of immigration, the states lack even the right to duplicate federal law word-for-word.

Beyond this, I am certain that neither Sen. Pearce nor Gov. Brewer would actually go into their next election campaigns asserting they expended significant time and state resources on a bill that does nothing to change existing law and authority.

They and other proponents have at various times maintained, in more or less blatant contradiction of their rhetorical defense of the law's constitutional propriety, that SB 1070 is a much-needed change in current law that will strengthen Arizona.

In fact, the pre-enactment characterization more accurately reflects the bill's effects: SB 1070 would dramatically change every Arizonan's daily experience, especially anyone whose appearance, name, language or accent fits the stereotype of the undocumented.

It is this invitation or direction to police to engage in racial profiling, together with the state's unconstitutional attempt to regulate immigration, that makes it unlikely that SB 1070 can ever be implemented. Nonetheless, Arizona will experience extreme and dire consequences, just as California experienced a decade-and-a-half ago.

Source : CNN

Read More

New immigration law won't hurt economy, Arizona governor says

(News Terupdate) - Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer on Monday deflected concerns that the state's new immigration law will hurt economic development, saying many businesses have long wanted tougher action.

The new law requires Arizona police to determine whether people are in the United States legally if there is a reason to suspect they aren't. Brewer signed the controversial legislation into law on Friday.

"The bottom line is that when I go about meeting with businesses that come into Arizona ... they want to know that we have a safe and secure environment into which to move their businesses here," Brewer said at an Arizona Town Hall event in Tucson. "They want to know that their employees are going to have a quality of life that they've had in the places where they're moving from to move here."

"I believe it's not going to have the kind of economic impact that some people think that it might," Brewer, a Republican, said.

The law, scheduled to go into effect 90 days after the close of the state's legislative session, would require immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times. Previously, officers could check someone's immigration status only if that person was suspected in another crime.

Critics say the law could foster racial profiling and prompt businesses, conventions and tourists to stay away from the state. The bill has prompted rallies by opponents and supporters, and some prominent politicians in Washington and Arizona have criticized the measure, including Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon, who has said he'll file a lawsuit to block the law.

People have been protesting the bill outside the state Capitol since Friday, CNN affiliate KTVK reported.

"People are going to be stopped just because of the color of [their] skin. And it ain't right," protester Jose Acosta told CNN on Sunday. "Are they going to be looking for Europeans as well, or is it just the brown people?"

Supporters say the measure is needed because the federal government has failed to enforce its own immigration laws. In Tucson on Monday, Brewer said she has written to the federal government five times about the issue in the past year and a half.

"[The letters] have been met with complete, total disrespect to the people of Arizona. I mean, we don't even get an answer back from our letters in regard to securing our border," Brewer said. "So, given that, I think it was time that Arizonans did step up, and that was one reason why I think that [the new state legislation] was signed."

Brewer emphasized an executive order she issued last week to accompany the law will require additional training for local officers on how to implement the law without engaging in racial profiling.

"I want you all to know that racial profiling is illegal. It's the law," she said Monday. "We are going to be very diligent, and we're going to make absolutely sure that that law ... will be implemented properly and respectfully."

Gordon, Phoenix's mayor and a Democrat, said his office hopes the City Council will authorize the city to file a lawsuit Tuesday.

"Convention [and] tourist business groups have already gotten dozens of calls. We're pleading with them not to boycott Phoenix or the state because of [the bill]," Gordon said Monday on CNN's "The Situation Room." "There will be court challenges. I'm confident that the federal courts will enjoin it at least until it is determined [whether it's] constitutional and how to enforce it so that officers don't get sued by individuals alleging civil rights violations."

President Obama last week called the legislation "misguided" and said the federal government must act on the immigration issue.

"Our failure to act responsible at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others. That includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona, which threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe," the president said in Washington at a naturalization ceremony for 24 members of the military.

Source : CNN

Read More

Hundreds protest immigration law in Arizona

Phoenix, Arizona (News Terupdate) - Hundreds of people gathered outside Arizona's Capitol building on Sunday in a largely peaceful protest against the state's tough new immigration law.

Chanting "Yes we can," waving American flags and holding signs reading "We have rights" and "We are human," demonstrators kept up a festive spirit as they denounced the bill signed Friday by Gov. Jan Brewer.

The new law requires police to determine whether a person is in the United States legally. It also requires immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times and requires police to question people if there is reason to suspect they're in the United States illegally.

Protesters worry that the law will foster racial profiling.

"What is 'reasonable suspicion?' " protester Jose Acosta asked Sunday. "Are we going to get pulled over just because of a broken taillight or because of the color of our skin? ... If so, is everybody going to be pulled over?"

Kearny Police Chief Joe Martinez called critics' concerns unfounded, saying the Arizona law enforcement community includes a large number of Hispanics.

"We've never had a policy of racial profiling," Martinez said Saturday night at a town hall meeting in Casa Grande. "In fact, quite the contrary, it's been outlawed."

Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon appeared at the rally in support of the protest, calling the law unconstitutional and "just plain wrong."

"America is a country that is compassionate and that welcomes everyone," he said. "This is not what this country and this state was founded upon."

Gordon vowed to take the fight through the state's judicial system.

"We'll go to the state courts and we'll go to the federal courts and we'll go all the way to the Supreme Court," he told the cheering crowd. "I promise you."

Gordon told CNN on Saturday that he will bring up an item calling for legal action against the law at Tuesday's City Council session.

Others were also vowing this weekend to legally challenge the law.

The Rev. Al Sharpton, along with leaders from the National Action Network and the Hispanic Federation, announced Sunday that he will legally challenge the law.

The law "is an affront to the civil rights of all Americans and an attempt to legalize racial profiling," Sharpton said in a statement after the bill's signing Friday. "As one who helped to make racial profiling a national issue and who has in the last year visited Arizona several times to rally against these draconian immigration policies, I am calling for a coalition of civil rights organizations to work with those in Arizona to resist and overturn this state law."

The National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, a group that represents 30,000 Latino churches worldwide, also said Saturday it plans to file a lawsuit against the bill.

"In addition to this law being illegal, if this law goes into effect, we expect it to have a dramatic affect on the state with U.S. citizens, legal residents and others moving out of the state out of fear of being singled out," William Sanchez, an immigration attorney representing the coalition, said in a statement.

Source : CNN

Read More

What does Arizona's immigration law do?

(News Terupdate) - Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer on Friday signed the state's immigration bill into law. It is considered to be among the toughest legislation in the nation.

What does the Arizona law do?

Arizona's law orders immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times and requires police to question people if there's reason to suspect they're in the United States illegally.

It also targets those who hire illegal immigrant laborers or knowingly transport them.

Are other states considering similar legislation?

Michael Hethmon, general counsel for the Immigration Reform Law Institute, helped draft the language of the Arizona bill. Hethmon said lawmakers from four other states have approached him asking for advice on how they can do the same thing where they live. He declined to identify which states, citing attorney-client privilege.

State laws relating to immigration have increased in recent years, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

In 2005, 300 bills were introduced. The next year, that number nearly doubled, and in 2007, more than 1,500 bills were introduced. Another 1,305 were introduced in 2008, and about 1,500 were considered in 2009.

About 15 percent of those were enacted, dealing with issues such as driver's licenses, health and education.

About 1,000 bills have been brought up so far this year.

What do opponents say?

Critics, including immigrant advocates and the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, say they are concerned the law will foster racial profiling, arguing that most police officers don't have enough training to look past race while investigating a person's legal status.

Read remarks made Friday by president, Arizona governor

Is federal immigration legislation coming?

Democrats tell CNN that if they don't get Republican commitments soon, they likely will push to move a bill without GOP support.

Democratic sources said the chances of passing immigration reform in that scenario this year are slim, but they want to make clear to key constituencies they are at least trying.

President Obama is still pushing for a bill, though.

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina is the only GOP senator on board, but he has told Democrats they will lose his support unless they find another Republican.

Obama recently called Sen. Scott Brown, R-Massachusetts, to try to get him on board, a Brown spokeswoman said.

On Thursday, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Alabama, said in a statement that during tough economic conditions, Americans are "dubious" about immigration reform.

He said the White House and Congress should not immediately take up the issue -- but instead "take targeted steps to deal with the crisis at the border, increase the usage of the E-Verify program, and enhance prosecutions of employers who knowingly hire illegal workers."

The last immigration reform efforts in Congress were in 2005 when Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, and the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, Brown's predecessor, introduced a bipartisan bill that aimed to implement guest-worker programs and ways for more illegal immigrants to become citizens.

The McCain-Kennedy bill, however, never came up for a vote in the Senate.

Other legislative efforts have failed to gain momentum.

Source : CNN

Read More

Arizona governor signs immigration bill

Phoenix, Arizona (News Terupdate) - Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed a bill Friday that requires police in her state to determine whether a person is in the United States legally, which critics say will foster racial profiling but supporters say will crack down on illegal immigration.

The bill requires immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times and requires police to question people if there is reason to suspect that they're in the United States illegally. It also targets those who hire illegal immigrant day laborers or knowingly transport them.

The Republican governor also issued an executive order that requires additional training for local officers on how to implement the law without engaging in racial profiling or discrimination.

"This training will include what does and does not constitute reasonable suspicion that a person is not legally present in the United States," Brewer said after signing the bill.

"Racial profiling is illegal. It is illegal in America, and it's certainly illegal in Arizona," Brewer said.

The rules, to be established in by the Arizona Peace Officers Standards and Training Board, are due back to her in May. The law goes into effect 90 days after the close of the legislative session, which has not been determined.

What will Arizona's immigration law do?

Previously, officers could check someone's immigration status only if that person was suspected in another crime.

Brewer's executive order was in response to critics who argue that the new law will lead to racial profiling, saying that most police officers don't have enough training to look past race while investigating a person's legal status.

"As committed as I am to protecting our state from crime associated with illegal immigration, I am equally committed to holding law enforcement accountable should this stature ever be misused to violate an individual's rights," Brewer said.

She added that the law would probably be challenged in courts and that there are those outside Arizona who have an interest in seeing the state fail with the new measure.

"We cannot give them that chance. We must use this new tool wisely and fight for our safety with the honor Arizona deserves."

The bill is considered to be among the toughest immigration measures in the nation. Supporters say the measure is needed to fill a void left by the federal government's failure to enforce its immigration laws.

Its leading sponsor, state Sen. Russell Pearce, said this week, "Illegal is not a race; it's a crime."

"We're going to take the handcuffs off of law enforcement. We're going to put them on the bad guy," said Pearce, a Republican.

Fellow Republican state Sen. Frank Antenori said the biggest reason he supported the bill was because a rancher in one of the counties he represents was murdered by someone who crossed the U.S. border with Mexico illegally. He said the person of interest in the killing had crossed the border numerous times and cited other similar violent crimes.

"The citizens of this state are tired of the catch and release that is going on by the federal government where they grab people, they process them, and they take them back and drop them on the other side of the border," Antenori said. "They just come back, and we have no border security down here."

After the signing, the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police, which had opposed the measure, issued a statement saying, "law enforcement professionals in the State of Arizona will enforce the provisions of the new law to the best of their abilities."

The state's largest police union, the Arizona Police Association, is in favor of the law.

In the hours leading up to the bill's signing, about 2,000 people rallied at the Arizona capital, and President Barack Obama, in the nation's capital, called the legislation "misguided" but said the federal government must act on the immigration issue.

Read excerpts from remarks Friday by Obama and Brewer

"Our failure to act responsible at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others. That includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona, which threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe," the president said at a naturalization ceremony for 24 members of the military.

Brewer's counterpart in neighboring New Mexico, Gov. Bill Richardson, called the new law "a terrible piece of legislation."

"It's against the democratic ideals of this country," he told CNN's "Situation Room." "It's a step backwards. It's impractical."

He said the law would not combat the problem of illegal immigration or take the place of comprehensive reform.

iReport: Share your thoughts on immigration policy

Latino members of Congress also slammed the bill.

"When you institutionalize a law like this one, you are targeting and discriminating at a wholesale level against a group of people," Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Arizona, said Tuesday.

Grijalva closed his two district offices Friday when an unidentified caller threatened to blow up his Tucson office and kill his staff members. The caller also said he was going to be "exercising my civil liberties, and I'm shooting Mexicans at the border," according to Grijalva's district director, Ruben Reyes, who fielded one of the calls.

Grijalva and Rep. Luis Gutierrez, chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, had called on Brewer to veto the measure.

Gutierrez is a leading supporter of a proposed overhaul of U.S. immigration laws and said the Arizona issue shows why an overhaul is necessary. He has urged Obama to "put his back into the push" and to let Arizona know that federal law trumps state legislation on immigration.

The Virginia-based Hispanic Leadership Fund also criticized the law, saying in a written statement, "Having to 'carry your papers' is a hallmark of authoritarian regimes -- not of the Constitutional Republic that our Founding Fathers wisely passed on to us. Arizonans and all Americans deserve an immigration system that works, not a draconian big government desecration of the Bill of Rights."

Brewer said that "decades of federal inaction and misguided policies" have created "a dangerous and unacceptable situation."

The governor said Arizona's law mirrors federal statutes on immigration enforcement, "despite the erroneous and misleading statements suggesting otherwise."

Asked what criteria will be used to establish reasonable suspicion of someone's legal status, Brewer said, "I don't know. I do not know what an illegal immigrant looks like."

However, she added, her executive order requires the Arizona Peace Officers Standards and Training Board to address the issue.

"I know that if AZPOST gets [itself] together, works on this law, puts down the description, that the law will be enforced civilly, fairly and without discriminatory points to it."

Source : CNN

Read More