Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon underwent a change of heart last week on the issue of illegal immigration enforcement.

Facing a Judicial Watch investigation and potential lawsuit, Mayor Gordon reversed his position on the city’s Operations Order 1.4, which prohibits police officers from inquiring about the immigration status of individuals and from cooperating with federal immigration officials. (This policy is similar to the LAPD’s “Special Order 40,” which is the subject of a separate Judicial Watch lawsuit.) Mayor Gordon dramatically withdrew his support of the policy during a press conference held on December 3 and announced the formation of an illegal immigration expert panel to study the policy and to recommend changes.

“When [Operations Order 1.4] was written, it was right for local law enforcement and our community. But it was written in another time…,” Mayor Gordon stated, suggesting the policy had become outdated. “…Obviously, that has changed…”

No, what has changed is the fact that for the last four months, Judicial Watch has been working with businesses (organized as the 36th and Thomas Business Coalition), community leaders and law enforcement to bring about a change in Phoenix’s status as an illegal alien "sanctuary city." Our investigative team, led by Chris Farrell, interviewed dozens of people, filed numerous public records act requests, and analyzed public documents as part of a comprehensive investigative and public education campaign.

There is no doubt these efforts forced the mayor’s hand.

Whatever his motivation, however, we are pleased Mayor Gordon has finally come to grips with his administration’s failure to adequately address the illegal immigration crisis. And we generally support the mayor’s public calls for radical change in the way the Phoenix Police Department enforces federal immigration law. The city’s sanctuary policies have severely damaged business owners and taxpayers, including the owners of Pruitt’s Furniture, who are leaders in the Phoenix business community.

With respect to the mayor’s “expert panel,” I suppose this is a good idea depending on who is making the recommendations. I was disappointed that the panel did not include Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Maricopa County Attorney Andrew P. Thomas, both of whom have valuable immigration enforcement experience in the area surrounding Phoenix and interact with the Phoenix Police Department on a daily basis.

Judicial Watch will most definitely keep tabs on Mayor Gordon’s panel to make sure that any new policies comply with federal immigration law. However, if the commission’s work results in police immigration policies at odds with federal law, a Judicial Watch lawsuit would still be on the table.

Ethical Problems Dog Presidential Contenders

In the last election cycle, government corruption was the key campaign issue, and there is little reason to believe 2008 will be any different. So how does the current slate of presidential contenders measure up on the issue of ethics?

So far, not so good.

In addition to her generally sordid ethics record, Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) has taken a lot of heat recently – and rightly so – for failing to release her official White House records. Many suspect these records contain a treasure trove of information related to the former first lady’s role in a number of serious Clinton-era scandals.

Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), meanwhile, was involved in a suspicious real estate deal with an indicted political fundraiser, Antoin “Tony” Rezko. Obama was also linked to an alleged influence peddling scandal and was nabbed conducting campaign business in his Senate office, a violation of federal law.

Rudy Giuliani (R-NY) came under fire in recent weeks after it was discovered the former New York mayor billed obscure government agencies for security expenses for trips to the Hamptons where his then-mistress, now wife, Judy Nathan, resided. ABC News recently reported that Giuliani also provided Nathan a police vehicle and a city driver at taxpayer expense. All of this comes on the heels of the federal indictment on corruption charges of his former Police Chief and business partner Bernard Kerik.

And then there’s Governor Mike Huckabee, the former Baptist minister who has enjoyed a meteoric rise in the polls in these last few weeks. According to Politico.com:

“[Huckabee’s] career has also been colored by 14 ethics complaints and a volley of questions about his integrity, ranging from his management of campaign cash to his use of a nonprofit organization to subsidize his income to his destruction of state computer files on his way out of the governor’s office.”

Perhaps most disturbing of all, however, was Huckabee’s response to these ethics allegations. Rather than cooperating with investigators, Huckabee sued the state ethics commission twice and attempted to shut the ethics process down.

Given the track records of many of the leading presidential contenders, American voters from both parties concerned about government ethics may have some difficult choices to make.

Former President Clinton Lies and Denies in C-SPAN Interview

On Friday, November 30, C-SPAN aired an interview with former President Clinton on a wide range of topics, including the release of White House records and his impeachment. Here are a few excerpts from his outrageous (and revisionist) remarks:

“I want to push the release of more [White House records], including the request for documents about Hillary’s time in the White House…So I’d like it if the records got out there…but the American people just [need] to know, we’re getting this stuff out there as soon as we can…”

Really? According to a National Archives court filing in Judicial Watch’s lawsuit, “on average, Presidential representatives have required 237 days to complete their review of Clinton Presidential records.”

“I wanted to give all of my records to the 9/11 Commission. I wanted all the support necessary. And we kept meticulous records, and I wanted to give it to them.”

Except, of course, for those records Sandy Berger, Clinton’s National Security Advisor, stole from the National Archives and destroyed.

“There was a request, I think, for all of Hillary’s schedules [by Judicial Watch]. And I think that’ll be out sometime in January.”

The National Archives claims that their review of these schedules will be completed by January 2008. However archivists claim at that point President Clinton’s representatives must review them and are seeking an indefinite period of time to release. I hope the president is suggesting that he will authorize their release the moment the Archives finishes its review, but I highly doubt it.

“I am not afraid to have my records made public…If there’s anything to be learned by the records, let them show it.”

Amen to that.

“…[Impeachment] was a fight for power…”

Impeachment was a fight for the rule of law. It was about perjury and obstruction of justice by a sitting president. President Clinton admitted to lying under oath and copped a plea deal to avoid criminal prosecution. If not for weak and intimidated Republicans and enabling Democrats, President Clinton would have been removed from power.

“So the public agreed with me…Doesn’t excuse the personal mistake I made, but it was not an impeachable offense...”

In what universe does lying under oath and obstructing justice fail to rise to the standard of “high crimes and misdemeanors? Like O.J., Bill Clinton doesn’t get it, and he never will. The sophisticates tell America that Clinton corruption is passé – given Bill’s dishonest comments, it is terribly current.

Judicial Watch to Appeal Court Ruling in Illegal Day Labor Site Lawsuit

On November 21, the Orange County Superior Court ruled in favor of the City of Laguna Beach and its day Labor site for illegal aliens (Garcia, et al., v City of Laguna Beach, et al.). Judicial Watch respectfully disagrees with the court’s decision and we will most certainly file an appeal for our clients. Our evidence shows the City of Laguna Beach is knowingly subsidizing illegal activity by operating a day labor site for illegal aliens. This is not only an unconscionable misuse of taxpayer funds, but it also is a flagrant violation of federal law. We look forward to making our case before an appellate court.

On October 3, 2006, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit against the City of Laguna Beach for spending taxpayer funds to operate the Laguna Day Worker Center, a day labor site that helps illegal aliens find jobs and provides other public benefits, including English language instruction. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Laguna Beach taxpayers Eileen Garcia and George Riviere.

I will have more for you on this lawsuit in coming months as this is far from over.

Tom Fitton is President of Judicial Watch, a nonpartisan educational foundation that fights government corruption. Visit www.judicialwatch.org for more information on Judicial Watch's legal campaigns and programs.