Submitted at 4/23/2012 2:34:01 PM
A handout picture obtained fromthe London OrganisingCommittee of the Olympic andParalympic Games (LOCOG)received on April 17, 2012 andtaken on April 16, 2012 shows anaerial view of the Olympic Park inLondon showing the OlympicStadium (R) and the AquaticsCentre and Water Polo Arena (L).London will mark 100 days to gountil the 2012 Olympic Gamesopening ceremony on April 18(AFP Photo / London 2012 / Anthony Charlton)The outrage over the allocation of London 2012 Olympic ticketsreignites as ticket-hungry Britonssee fresh opportunity to buy slipfrom their hands.Thousands of tickets went on saleon Monday after Spain admitted itcould not sell its generousallocation.However, these tickets will beavailable to residents from allacross the EU and only via thecontroversial Spanish-languageViagogo website.In the UK, many had hoped thatthe unwanted allocation would bereturned to the Olympicsorganising committee Locog tosell on to British spectators.The move will infuriate ticketlessBritons who think they should befirst in line, and believe theallocation process was unfair fromthe start.Thousands were left disappointedby last year's ticket ballot, and therevelation that tickets for severalpopular events have been sitting,unwanted, in Spain all this timewill only add fuel to accusationsthat the system was badlymismanaged.These include the men's 100metres final, gymnastics, beachvolleyball and even the openingand closing ceremonies.The Spanish Olympic Committeeinitially gave its tickets awaythroughout a music and book store chain called Finac, howeverafter several months barely anyhad been sold, with some shopsfailing to sell even a single ticket.This latest controversy comes hoton the heels of news over theweekend that Thomas Cook– thetravel agent and official partnerwith the London 2012 games–was accused of selling tickets forthe men's 100 metres final with ahuge mark-up.Despite a global ban on sellingtickets above face value, theSunday Times reported theoperator– which paid more than£20 million to be the officialprovider of ticket andaccommodation packages– wasoffering a pair of tickets for themen's 100 metre final including atravel pass and night in a hotelroom, for a price tag of just under£3,000.However, once the cost of theroom and the pass is subtracted,each ticket costs £1,306– morethan triple the fact value of £420.Today’s announcement will spark further debate over the fairnessand transparency of the entire UKticketing operation which manybranded "farcical".The system appeared skewed tofavour the rich; with the 2011ballot allowing would-be Olympicgoers to request as many tickets asthey liked so long as they couldguarantee payment for them ontheir credit card.Punters who were not willing togamble large amounts of cash feltthe odds were unfairly stackedagainst them. However, manypeople who did ask for thousandsof pounds worth were also leftdisappointed leaving many dumb-founded as to how the ticketswere allocated.Further criticism followed failedattempts to use the ticket websitewhich suffered severe technicalproblems. There have beennumerous calls for a breakdownof tickets by price and by event,so it can be checked whetherpromises to make seats affordableare being kept.Meanwhile the controversies andunwanted press attention continueto mount.Earlier in the month, the father of cycling gold medallist Sir ChrisHoy slammed the ticket allocationprocess.My Hoy said not enough wasbeing done for athlete's families.Locog insists that every Britishathlete has been given theopportunity to buy two tickets foreach session in which theycompete.But with many events, includingcycling, being oversubscribed, MrHoy believes, with the final roundof ticket sales due to take place,organisers should hold more back for families.According to Locog and theGames organisers, up to a millionmore seats will be made availableonce capacities of all the differentvenues have been finalised.This entry passed through theFull-Text RSSservice — if this isyour content and you're reading iton someone else's site, please readthe FAQ atfivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers.FiveFiltersrecommends:Donate toWikileaks.
2Curated News Edition
Submitted at 4/23/2012 2:48:40 PM
WASHINGTON – Arizona Gov.Jan Brewersaid she didn't knowwhat she was starting when shesigned her name onto the state'slandmark immigration bill justover two years ago.• 2010 photo by Ralph Freso, APEdward Pina protests Arizona'sSB1070 immigration-enforcementlaw in Phoenix.2010 photo by Ralph Freso, APEdward Pina protests Arizona'sSB1070 immigration-enforcementlaw in Phoenix.Sponsored Links"I knew that it was going to bemomentous," Brewer said. "But tothis extent, I had no realization."On Wednesday, she will besitting in the gallery of theU.S.Supreme Courtas the justicesconsider the fate of Senate Bill1070, which was considered thetoughest state immigrationenforcement law to date andserved as the blueprint for fiveother states that followed suit thenext year.Supporters of the law say it wasnecessary because the federalgovernment has failed to controlthe influx of illegal immigrantsinto the country, forcing stateslike Arizona to grapple with thesecurity concerns and high costsof educating and caring for illegalimmigrants.Opponents say it unfairlycriminalizes otherwise law-abiding people, opens the door forracial profiling of Hispanicslegally in the country and forcesstate law enforcement to interferewith the intricacies of federalimmigration policy.By John Moore, Getty ImagesSupporters of Arizona'simmigration law SB1070 ralliedat the state capitol building onJuly 31, 2010.The Supreme Court's ruling,expected in June, could have far-reaching effects on the future of state efforts to combat illegalimmigration, the daily lives of thenation's 11 million illegalimmigrants and, to some degree,the outcome of November'spresidential election."This is the most importantimmigration case in a generation,"said Warren Stewart, senior pastorat the First Institutional BaptistChurch in Phoenix. What's underreview?The Supreme Court will decideon four provisions of Arizona'santi-illegal immigration law,known as SB 1070, that have beenblocked by federal courts. Theyare:Section 2(B): Requires state andlocal police to perform roadsideimmigration checks of peoplethey've stopped or detained if a"reasonable suspicion" exists theyare in the country illegally.Section 3: Makes it a state crimefor illegal immigrants not topossess their federal registrationcards.Section 5(C): Makes it a statecrime for illegal immigrants towork, apply for work or solicitwork in any way, includingmaking a "gesture or nod"indicating they are looking forwork.Section 6: Allows state and localpolice to arrest illegal immigrantswithout a warrant when probablecause exists that they committed"any public offense that makes theperson removable from theUnitedStates."Source: USA TODAY researchJust a month after the courtentered into the legal thicket thatis health care in America, the justices will be taking up one of the nation's most vexing, politicaland cultural issues. Once again,the courthouse steps are expectedto be crammed with peoplesupporting both sides of thedebate. And the two gladiators of the health care debate will face off in a packed courtoom:U.S.Solicitor General Donald Verrilliwill argue for the federalgovernment, and former solicitorgeneralPaul Clementwill defendArizona.But this time, the court will bemissing Justice Elena Kagan, whorecused herself presumablybecause of her work as solicitorgeneral underPresident Obama.That sets up the potential for a 4-4tie, which would give the U.S. avictory since the injunctionoriginally imposed by U.S.District Judge Susan Bolton inPhoenix, and upheld by the 9thCircuit Court of Appeals in SanFrancisco, would stand.The case is the culmination of growing frustration in states overthe inability of Washington toagree on a way to handle thecountry's illegal immigrants — aconsensus not reached since theReagan administration. That hasresulted in a complex web of statelaws that have gone in wildlydifferent directions.Since Arizona passed SB 1070,Alabama adopted the toughest-in-the-nation mantle with itsimmigration law that required K-12 school officials to check theimmigration status of all newstudents. On the other end of thespectrum,Rhode Islandjoined 12other states that allow illegalimmigrants to receive in-statecollege tuition. And somewhere inbetween, Utah adopted a law thatadopts Arizona-style enforcement,but also provides for a permit forsome illegal immigrants to legallywork in the state.A June court ruling will raise theimmigration debate just as thepresidential debate kicks into thehome stretch. And with Obama'sre-election campaign and theRepublican Partyboth launchingtheir Hispanic outreach programslast week to reach an expected 12million Hispanic voters, the rulingcould energize voters on one, orboth, sides of the debate.By Tom Tingle, The ArizonaRepublic, via APArizona Gov. Jan Brewer saidshe didn’t know what she wasstarting when she signed her nameonto the state’s landmark immigration bill just over twoyears ago.Obama's immigration record aspresident has been mixed. Hisadministration has set recordseach year for the number of people it deports — nearly400,000 last year. But it hasfocused deportation efforts onillegal immigrants who areconvicted criminals, resulting in
Headline/
SUPREME page 3
3Curated News Edition
SUPREME
continued from page 2
the highest percentage of deportees having criminal recordslast year (about 55%) in a decade. Mitt Romney, the formerMassachusetts governor andlikely Republican nominee, hascalled Arizona's efforts to combatillegal immigration by crackingdown on businesses who hirethem — but not the whole law —"a model" for the nation. He hasalso embraced the Arizona-inspired idea of making life sodifficult for illegal immigrantsthat they choose to "self-deport."A victory in Arizona v. UnitedStates would solidify eithercandidate's argument, but couldinspire severe backlash, orsupport, from the ever-growingHispanic electorate."It will be a seismic shift in theLatino community," said AngelaKelley of the Center for AmericanProgress, which opposes theArizona law. "It will be known toevery Latino in this country."Bob Dane of the Federation forAmerican Immigration Reform,which supports Arizona's law,said a victory for the U.S. wouldbe a tragic endorsement of Obama's "we won't and you can't"immigration policy and fire upsupporters of the state efforts."That will weigh heavily onvoters' minds," Dane said.Years in the makingArizona's 2010 immigration lawmay have caught many bysurprise, but the state had beenheading in that direction for years.In 2004, Arizona voters passedProposition 200, which barredillegal immigrants from receivingpublic benefits. The state passedan anti-human-smuggling act in2005 to allow prosecutors tocharge border-crossers with statecrimes. And in 2007, Arizonapassed a law aimed at denyingwork for illegal immigrants. Allthree laws were challenged bycivil rights groups, but all wereupheld by federal courts.Then came Senate Bill 1070.The law's stated goal for theroughly 400,000 illegalimmigrants living in Arizona is"attrition through enforcement"and aims to "discourage and deterthe unlawful entry and presenceof aliens." The law expanded therequirements for local and statepolice to check the immigrationstatus of people, and created newstate crimes punishing illegalimmigrants.Immediately following the law'spassage, an untold number of illegal immigrants fled the state.Protests sprung up from Phoenixto Chicago.The state was boycotted by awide variety of entities, includingtheNational Council of La Raza,the cities of Los Angeles, St. Pauland Boston, musicians includingRage Against the MachineandKanye West, and even theHighland Park (Ill.) High Schoolwomen's basketball team, whichpulled out of a tournament inScottsdale.Activists unsuccessfully tried togetMajor League Baseballtomove the 2011 All-Star Gamefrom Phoenix. The outcry grew soloud that some called for aboycott of AriZona Iced Tea,prompting the company to issue astatement reminding customersthat they were still based inNewYork .The Center for AmericanProgress, which opposesArizona's immigration efforts,estimated that the tourism-dependent state would lose anestimated $388 million over threeyears as as result of the boycottsand negative publicity the lawgenerated.TheDepartment of Justicejoineda group of civil rightsorganizations in lawsuits seekingto halt the law from going intoeffect. At that time, in April 2010,President Obama called the law"misguided" and said theprovisions "threaten to underminebasic notions of fairness that wecherish as Americans."Despite the vocal criticism, thelaw was viewed favorably by thepeople most closely affected by it— Arizonans. Sixty-four percentof residents supported the law,according to a Rasmussen pollconducted shortly after the billwas signed into law.National polls also showed that amajority of Americans supportedArizona's efforts — 55% of Americans approved Arizona'slaw shortly after it was passed,according to aQuinnipiacUniversity Poll.On July 28, 2010, the day beforethe law was set to go into effect,U.S. District Judge Susan Boltonblocked the main portions of thelaw from going into effect,starting the appeals process thatled it to the Supreme Court.Portions of law enforcedStill,Carlos Garcia, a 29-year-oldnative of Mexico who lives inPhoenix, said the remainingportions of the law, combinedwith those passed before it, havecreated a culture of fear in thestate for both legal and illegalimmigrants.Garcia is a U.S. citizen, but hesays most of his relatives areillegal immigrants. In the twoyears since SB 1070 went intoeffect, four of his relatives havebeen arrested — two have beendeported, two remain in thecountry."There's this perception thateverything is OK because 1070 isenjoined," Garcia said. "Butpeople continue to be raciallyprofiled, continue to be detained,continue to be deported."Phoenix police Sgt. Trent Crumpsaid his agency is definitelyenforcing the remaining portionsof the law.For example, Phoenix police usedto prevent its officers frominvestigating the immigrationstatus of crime victims andwitnesses. Crump said thedepartment was forced to removethat restriction because anotherportion of SB 1070 allowscitizens to sue governmentagencies, including policedepartments, if they are enforcingfederal immigration laws "to lessthan the full extent permitted byfederal law."The penalty is up to $5,000 a day."1070 doesn't allow a lot of interpretation," Crump said.Russell McClurg, a barber inApache Junction, Ariz., said thelaw is needed because the federalgovernment had ignored thefinancial and security burdensthrust upon the state by an openborder with Mexico."The only ones who seem to besticking up for Arizonans are theArizonans," said McClurg, 72."You'd think the federalgovernment would be more help,but they seem more interested infighting us."The clearest image of that battlecame when Obama visitedArizona in January and metBrewer on the tarmac, wherephotographs showed theRepublican governor pointing herfinger at the president. Brewerlater downplayed the scene, buther office has strongly defendedthe state's economic recoverysince the immigration law waspassed.As of February, the state hadadded 42,6000 new, non-farm jobs over the previous year, andstate revenues have increased8.7% so far in 2012. The ArizonaOffice of Tourism found the stategenerated $17.7 billion in directtravel spending in 2010 — a 7.9%increase over the previous year.Brewer said there may have beena negative effect in the immediateaftermath of the law, but that thestate has rebounded and the"Arizona comeback" is here."Businesses are coming. Peopleare recruiting," Brewer said. "Weshould get a lot of kudos for whatwe've accomplished."SUPREME page 4
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Liberty Newspost April 23 2012
A compelling mix of curated news. Easy to read. Great content
588
Reads
3
Readcasts
22
Embed Views
More From This User
Notes
Load more
