A tough, new law on illegal immigration in Arizona is being challenged in federal court today.

The Legal Arizona Workers Act prohibits employers from knowingly hiring illegal aliens and requires the state attorney general and the county attorneys to investigate complaints about employers who do so.

A federal district court in Phoenix will hear arguments by the American Civil Liberties Union, National Immigration Law Center and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund challenging the law.

Those groups say the law will lead to discrimination against the foreign-born and punishes businesses by "improperly requiring participation in a flawed federal work authorization verification database."

The new law was signed by Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano on July 2 and is scheduled to go into affect Jan. 1. In a written statement accompanying the bill, she said she signed the act because Congress had failed miserably in its attempts to pass comprehensive immigration reform.

"Immigration is a federal responsibility, but I signed HB 2779 because it is now abundantly clear that Congress finds itself incapable of coping with the comprehensive immigration reforms our country needs," she said. "I signed it, too, out of the realization that the flow of illegal immigration into our state is due to the constant demand of some employers for cheap, undocumented labor."

The law requires employers to verify employment eligibility through a federal database and says that those found to knowingly hire illegal aliens face criminal penalties up to and including suspension or termination of the company's business license.

The suit claims that the law amounts to a "state employer sanctions law that imposes penalties far beyond what the federal government allows."

It said the law would close down any business that has committed two violations of hiring unauthorized workers in a three-year period, and requires all Arizona businesses to check their employees' work authorization status through a "flawed federal verification database."

It said the database is "rife with errors," noting that Congress has made its use voluntary to "avoid putting authorized workers at risk of termination and putting lawfully operating businesses in danger of sanctions."

— Jerry Seper, national reporter, The Washington Times

Richard K. Jones, sheriff of Butler County, Ohio, and an outspoken critic of federal efforts to control illegal immigration, has posted a YouTube-style video report on his department's Web page about his recent trip to the U.S.-Mexico border in Arizona.

Traveling to Cochise County, one of the country's most popular alien- and drug-smuggling corridors, Sheriff Jones said he wanted to get a first-hand look at how secure America's borders are four years after the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and the establishment of the "One Face at the Border" program.

But what he and his traveling companion, Ohio state Rep. Courtney Coombs, saw was more of the "insecurity of the border," he said.

Sheriff Jones, a member of the National Sheriff's Committee on Immigration Issues, says in the 15-minute video report that he wanted the public to know exactly what he saw and what he was told about the problem of illegal immigration by Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever.

"Don't believe all these people are coming for a better life," he said, adding that many drug dealers are paying illegal aliens to smuggle marijuana and cocaine over the mountains and desert from Mexico into the United States.

Sheriff Jones has asked Homeland Security and the Mexican government to reimburse him in his fight against Mexican-based drug rings in his county. He said the Senate's failure to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill is reason enough for states to target illegal aliens themselves and called on state officials to enact legislation to deal with what he called a "continuing illegal-immigration crisis."

"Let's create stricter state laws to go after employers who hire persons who are in this state illegally," he said.

The sheriff has advocated immigration reform for more than two years, when illegal aliens started swamping the Butler County jail. He has vigorously derided the cost of housing illegal-alien inmates and targeted the employers who hired them, openly expanding his campaign to include the cost to taxpayers for illegals who use the county's schools, hospitals, courts and law enforcement.

"Just in this county alone, the cost to the taxpayers is $1 million," he said. "Add to that the cost to the citizens throughout the United States and that taxpayer burden is in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

"The law is the law. We must enforce the law we have. The only additional change in the law should be that our local law enforcement should have the authority to enforce the federal immigration law without having to obtain federal permission," he said.

— Jerry Seper, national reporter, The Washington Times

Some lower-level immigration-related fights are brewing in Congress this week, including a decision on whether the federal government will continue to sue the Salvation Army over its English policy.

At issue is a provision in a Senate spending bill that would stop the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's lawsuit. The House last week voted to agree with the Senate, though it was a non-binding vote. Now Hispanic House Democrats are furious.

The showdown comes tomorrow when House and Senate negotiators meet to try to finalize that spending bill, and will have to decide whether to keep the provision in.

The EEOC is suing over a Framingham, Mass., Salvation Army story policy that says only English may be spoken in the workplace. The two employee had worked at the store for several years when the store decided to enforce its English-only policy. It gave the employees a year to learn English to a proficient level, and fired them when they failed to do so. EEOC says there's no legitimate business reason for requiring English.

Also up on Tuesday is a House hearing on HR 3287, the Tumacacori Highlands Wilderness Act, proposed by Rep. Raul Grijalva. The Land Rights Network, a group that opposes added restrictions on federal lands, says the bill would create a wilderness area "exactly where a major illegal immigration traffic area and drug smuggling pathway already exists." They fear new restrictions would only give illegal aliens a safer path to Interstate 19, which runs from the border into Tucson, Ariz.

— Stephen Dinan, national political reporter, The Washington Times

There's been a lot of debate over the role of immigration in this week's elections. The conclusion: Who knows?

This paper reported that Republicans benefited in one set of local Virginia races, while the issue also roiled some local elections in New York.

One Washington Post piece concluded voters didn't have immigration on their mind when they went to the polls, despite plenty of effort by Republicans to put the issue there. But two other Post stories, here and here, found voters were talking about the issue, though maybe not the way Republicans had hoped.

The New York Times reported that the issue did not cut the way Republicans in that state had hoped, but only because Democrats "were able to cauterize the issue" by breaking with their governor's plan to issue driver's licenses to illegal aliens.

But after some high-profile anti-illegal immigration politicians tumbled in 2006 — particularly Rep. J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Republican — this year the high-profile fighters were re-elected, including Prince William's county board chairman and the mayor of Hazleton, Pa., who is promising to defend his ordinance against illegal immigration to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Now comes a new take by the Progressive States Network: "Voters are more likely to say they believe immigration is a top issue of concern when they are prompted in a vacuum than when they are asked an open-ended question about their priorities. However, that dynamic is not insignificant. It suggests that in individual races, voters can be prompted to cast their vote on the immigration issue — if progressives allow a vacuum on other issues like jobs, the economy, health care and trade to exist."

The lesson PSN takes from this year's elections is that immigration "is a stand-in" for the basic economic debate, and for voter unrest over globalization.

If that's so — and that's still a big if — then neither party should rest easy. Democrats are increasingly wary of free trade, but blunt that message with their embrace of legal status for illegal immigrants and for increasing immigration. Republicans, meanwhile, have been schizophrenic on immigration and generally pro-free trade.

If PSN is right, then the real power would seem to lie with the Pat Buchanan coalition — conservative Democrats and still-more conservative Republicans who are combining opposition to free trade and to illegal immigration as the backbone of their political message.

— Stephen Dinan, national political reporter, The Washington Times

The Politico reports John Edwards' position on driver's licenses for illegal aliens is as messy as Hillary Rodham Clinton's.

Edwards' campaign told the paper this: "He supports licenses as part of a path to citizenship. He doesn't support the Spitzer plan because it doesn't include a path to citizenship."

As immigration advocates point out in the story, that simply doesn't make sense. If they are on a path to citizenship they have legal status, and can obtain a driver's license anyway.

So the proper way to read Edwards' statement is that he opposes driver's licenses for illegal aliens.

Given that, here's how the top Democratic candidates stack up on the issue:

Just when we thought we knew her answer, Hillary Rodham Clinton flips back yet again.

Clinton today told CNN's Candy Crowley that she doesn't, in fact, support driver's licenses for illegal aliens.

That may come as a surprise to her campaign, which has been telling reporters she "broadly" supports New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's policy, though they rightfully point out Spitzer's plan is somewhat of a moving target.

As of today, it appears Clinton now supports illegal aliens obtaining licenses in some states, but not all. Here's the excerpt from Crowley's interview with Clinton:

CROWLEY: If I wrote a story that said: 'Absent a broad illegal immigration bill, Hillary Clinton agrees about giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants,' is that correct?

CLINTON: No. What I have said is that I support what governors are trying to do. And governors are on the front lines because of the failures to get comprehensive immigration reform.

There are already eight states that issues driver's licenses without any verification of citizenship. That is a decision that the governors and legislatures and the people of those states have made. I understand …

CROWLEY: But you see why people think …

CLINTON: Well, but you know, Candy …

CROWLEY: … that you are not answering the question.

CLINTON: Well, but you know, Candy, well, but I think that if you go back and look at the complexity of this issue, I don't think a lot of these hard questions lend themselves to raising your hand. And I know that that's easier in a 30-second context to try to do.

I think the fact that governors are being forced into this position is really unfortunate. They should not be making immigration policy. The federal government should be making immigration policy, and that's what I'm going to try to do as president again, and I do not believe that in the context of federal immigration reform that that would be an issue that governors would have to contend with.

CROWLEY: So it's — I know it's not a yes-or-no question to you, but you've had some time here, and the problem is that people can't quite get a hold of is: for a governor at this time, do you think it's a good idea for them to offer driver's licenses to illegal immigrants?

CLINTON: It depends upon what state they're in. It depends upon what they think the risks are. You know. A governor of New York that has a lot of immigrants, many of whom we know are not their legally, has to worry about security. A governor of another state where that's not a problem, doesn't.

This issue has been so politicized and I understand that because you can score points. You can score all kinds of political demagogic points but the fact is if we don’t have comprehensive immigration reform, which for me includes toughening the borders, much harder sanctions on employers, doing more to help local communities that are stuck with the bill on all kinds of services. And bringing immigrants out of the shadows.

And if they ever committed a crime where they came from or here, immediately deport them. But for the others, have a tough path to earned legalization. Pay back taxes. Pay fines. Learn English. Wait in line.

And once you got somebody on the record registered, deported the criminals, instead they had to keep on the right side of the law, keep making a living and do all of these other things I've outlined, that would be the appropriate time to give them some kind of license.

But I understand — I'm not going to be second-guessing governors who have to do the hard work of figuring out what's best for their state.

— Stephen Dinan, national political reporter, The Washington Times

It's the next immigration fight: Should illegal aliens working in agriculture be granted amnesty, and should the U.S. expand its existing guest-worker program to get new agriculture workers?

Expect that fight to begin as Congress takes up the gigantic farm bill.

But a new report from the Center for Immigration Studies says there's just no need for new workers. In short, the report says judging by economic indicators such as wages, plantings of labor-intensive crops and labor costs as a percentage of prices, there's no shortage of workers.

The report argues: "Mechanization could offset higher labor costs. After the 'Bracero' Mexican guest-worker program ended in the mid-1960s, farm worker wages rose 40 percent, but consumer prices rose relatively little because the mechanization of some crops dramatically increased productivity."

That drew a stern rebuke from the Agriculture Coalition for Immigration Reform, which called it a "superficial" study.

"Those living in the real world of agriculture know well the bite of the labor crisis," the coalition says. The group notes "a South Texas grower who lost $250,000 in income when a 35-acre cabbage field had to be abandoned," pear growers in northern California who lost a quarter of their 2006 crop, and Michigan farmers who lost a million pounds of asparagus this spring.

About the only area of agreement between the two is that the government will have to pitch in to help with mechanization. And that means the taxpayers will be on the hook.

— Stephen Dinan, national political reporter, The Washington Times

The Republican establishment has finally discovered the immigration issue. Months after an enraged electorate forced its senators to back off and start again, and two years after House Republicans saw the demand for an enforcement-first strategy, the party's intelligentsia has caught on.

"October 2007 may turn out to be the month that immigration became a key issue in presidential politics," writes Michael Barone, arguing that last week's presidential debate has now crystalized the differences between the
two parties.

But for those who have followed this issue closely, those differences have been apparently for some time. That's why the Republican-led House passed its enforcement-only bill back in 2005, and it explains why this year's Senate immigration bill -- which Mr. Barone supported -- foundered so badly. In truth, many Republicans have occupied the security-first ground for years.

So what has really changed? George Bush, or rather, the absence of him.

No longer does the party have an advocate for what can reasonably be argued as amnesty at its head. Remember, this is the president who bashed his own base, accused his own party of trying to "frighten people" during this year's debate, and said they didn't want to do what was right for the country. Even as his own party machinery, the RNC, tried to adopt a get-tough stand, Bush insisted they accept Mel Martinez, one of the premier advocates for legalization, as their chairman.

With the 2008 elections looming, Republicans now have a slate of folks to view as the head of their party — and every single one of them now supports an enforcement-first strategy, to varying degrees.

This doesn't mean immigration is the winner many Republicans believe it to be. We don't know that answer yet. We will soon find out.

-- Stephen Dinan, national political reporter, The Washington Times

Illegal immigration, as a political issue, may have flown under the mainstream media radar for years, but that's no longer the case.

In affluent Fairfax County, Republican Gary Baise took a stand against illegal immigration -- and finally got some traction in his quixotic bid to unseat incumbent county Board of Supervisors Chairman Gerald E. Connolly, a Democrat.

Baise is still considered a longshot in Tuesday's election, but he raised the profile of his campaign considerably by contrasting his position with that of Connolly, who calls talk of crackdowns "demagoguery."

In neighboring Prince William County, meanwhile, the crackdown has thrust the Washington suburb smack into the middle of the national debate.

The Potomac News notes that people on both sides of the issue are pushing their agendas on You Tube, posting videos and short films on both sides of the issues. Here's one of the most popular, an amateur documentary that has been viewed almost 40,000 times (and one that pretty obviously stacks the deck against the crackdown):

-- David Eldridge, managing editor, WashingtonTimes.com

Homeland Security is not backing off from Real ID, a spokeswoman says, responding to state officials who spoke under the auspices of the American Civil Liberties Union yesterday.

"The ACLU is living in a fantasy world. They continue to spout off erroneous information to confuse and mislead the public about a core finding of the 9/11 Commission and a mandate from Congress. In this instance, they could not be further from the truth," says DHS spokeswoman Laura Keehner.

She said they continue to work with states to implement Real ID, and said "there will be practical consequences for residents of states" that don't comply. She said that includes "not being able to fly on an aircraft or enter a federal building with a noncompliant license."

— Stephen Dinan, national political reporter, The Washington Times

Fred Thompson has posted a short video clip of himself attacking Hillary Rodham Clinton's embrace of driver's licenses for illegal aliens, indicating this issue is not likely to go away for the Democratic front-runner, particularly if she wins her party's nomination.

In Tuesday's debate, Clinton was on all sides of the license issue, saying it made sense to give illegal aliens licenses, but then adding that doesn't mean she supports it, then defending her governor for doing it, then saying it wasn't the right option.

A day later her campaign announced she actually embraced the idea in a broad sense.

In his videocast, Mr. Thompson said that delay was surprising: "It took her 12 hours to come up with the wrong answer for America this time. Usually she does it more quickly."

Thompson and Mitt Romney both have recognized the chance this issue offers Republicans, and have seized on it. Romney's campaign was the first out of the box on the night of the debate with a statement blasting Clinton.

Rudy Giuliani has made it an issue to a much lesser extent, but he is in a worse position, given his past support for welcoming illegal aliens in New York City.

— Stephen Dinan, national political reporter, The Washington Times

In an attempt to salvage the Real ID Act in the face of a rebellion among states who say it's too harsh, Homeland Security officials are telling states there will be no punishment if they don't comply, according to officials from some of those states.

"In discussions I participated in with the Department of Homeland Security, they were asked point blank, 'What will happen to states that don't participate?'" said Maine Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap. "The response was, 'Nothing will happen. There will be no penalty. You can still get on a plane.'"

If true, that would eliminate the major stick congressional lawmakers put into the 2005 act — the threat that licenses from states that didn't comply would be worthless for many important activities, such as entering a federal building or boarding an airplane.

Real ID sets national standards that are supposed to prevent illegal aliens from getting licenses, but state officials say those standards are too burdensome on legal residents and could cost billions of dollars to implement fully.

But some states are embracing Real ID, including New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, who this weekend decided his state will issue three classes of license, including two that comply with the act and a third, available to illegal aliens, that would allow them to drive but would not be accepted for federal purposes.

— Stephen Dinan, national political reporter, The Washington Times

The immigration debate in Congress is about to get a major shake-up in the form of a bill from Rep. Heath Shuler, North Carolina Democrat, that will call for a crackdown on illegal immigration.

According to an alert from NumbersUSA, the bill, which will be sponsored by both Democrats and Republicans, will mandate that all employers check their employees to make sure they are in the country legally.

While the Senate tried and failed earlier this year to legalize illegal aliens, Shuler's bill shows the House, even under Democratic control, still tilts toward enforcement.

In the last Congress, run by Republicans, the House passed an enforcement-only bill and the Senate passed a legalization bill, and the two chambers never met to try to work out differences. Shuler's bill suggests that same divide still exists.

Shuler is still shopping for more cosponsors before introducing his bill. The question now will be whether House Democratic leaders allow it to come to a vote.

— Stephen Dinan, national political reporter, The Washington Times

The National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers (NAFBPO) is applauding a decision by U.S. District Judge James Payne in Tulsa, Okla., who denied a request for an injunction by Latino groups to enjoin the state from putting into effect a new law barring illegal aliens from jobs and state assistance, and making it a felony to harbor or transport an illegal alien.

"NAFBPO is pleased to see that Oklahoma is free to proceed; it is a step in the right direction," said Kent Lundgren, coordinator of the 800-member association. "It is the proper role of the states to act when the federal government ignores its responsibilities, as it has for decades with respect to illegal immigration.

"Furthermore, the states have long been laboratories for social and political experiments – Oklahoma's action will explore this for the nation," he said.

Judge Payne ruled on Wednesday that the plaintiffs — including the Southwest regional counsel for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund — had failed to introduce enough evidence to meet the burden of proof required for a preliminary injunction to be issued. The judge threw out an earlier attempt by the group to stop the measure, known as House Bill 1804, saying the plaintiffs could not show they were harmed by a law that hadn't taken effect yet.

Mr. Lundgren, a former Border Patrol assistant chief, said NABPO has predicted that if the things that make it convenient or easy for illegal aliens to stay are removed, they will move on. He said that is being demonstrated in Oklahoma now, "where it is said by some that tens of thousands of illegal aliens have moved out of the state in response to the law."

NAFBPO, he said, expects that after an "initial period of adjustment to new realities," employers will find that there is no labor shortage. He said they may have to pay more to bring domestic workers back into the workforce, but that will benefit the state's economy. He said hundreds of millions of dollars will be spent locally, no longer being sent abroad by illegal aliens to their families back home.

Mr. Lundgren also said that NAFBPO believes an "honest accounting of welfare and education costs a year from now will reveal that they have either diminished to a noticeable degree or that stable funds are able to better support and educate legal Oklahoma residents." He said NAFBPO also predicts the state will see an improvement in public safety issues, from accidents involving uninsured motorists to gang crime.

Immigrant rights groups have decried the legislation, saying it unnecessarily repeats federal law, dehumanizes people and panders to people with racial biases.

But Mr. Lundgren said it was NAFBPO's position that although real immigration reform is possible, "it doesn't begin by legalizing millions of people who got here by evasion and trickery and deceit," he said. "It begins by making it clear to illegal aliens from anywhere that they must go home — and most of them do still have homes and family abroad.

"We don't have to arrest them and deport them; they will go on their own once they understand that they are no longer welcome." he said.

Mr. Lundgren said immigration laws exist for demonstrable reasons, although the government has "ignored those reasons for decades and is now paying a price for it." But, he said, a correction is underway, beginning with the states, and ultimately this is about "Americans making the decisions about whom we will allow to live among us.

"We will not have the decisions forced down our throats by those who have broken our laws and those who profit by their presence," he said.

— Jerry Seper, national reporter, The Washington Times

Still wondering what Hillary Rodham Clinton's position is on driver's licenses for illegal aliens? Apparently, so is she.

The New York Times says she clarified her position, with her campaign issuing a statement in which she says she supports New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer.

"Senator Clinton supports governors like Governor Spitzer who believe they need such a measure to deal with the crisis caused by this administration's failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform," her campaign said, according to the Times.

But her campaign refused to clarify for other reporters, including The Washington Times' Christina Bellantoni. Clinton herself refused to talk about it on a conference call with reporters, and her campaign statement to the Times doesn't appear to settle things much anyway.

Supporting Spitzer's need to take action is different than supporting this particular action. In Tuesday's debate she said his plan was sensible, though she wasn't supporting it, though she could defend it, but wasn't actually defending it. Isn't that still what her campaign is saying?

Also, it's unclear whether her support includes Spitzer's embrace this weekend of Real ID — something Clinton voted for as part of a spending bill in 2005.

— Stephen Dinan, national political reporter, The Washington Times