- Immigrants-rights groups threatened to stop backing California gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown (D). They claimed the Democrat failed immigrants by forcing San Francisco to participate in Secure Communities, a program that mandates information-sharing between federal immigration authorities and local law enforcement.

- Brown’s opponent, Republican Meg Whitman, said she supports Arizona’s immigration law — for Arizona — despite posting billboards in Spanish that claim she doesn’t.

- Arizona’s new immigration law went into effect Thursday, but not before a federal judge stripped it of controversial provisions. Protesters showed up in the state anyway, and 71 were arrested Thursday. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said the law might need “a little tweaking” to alter provisions blocked by a federal judge, and the state appealed the ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

- The judge who ruled to block parts of SB 1070 received threats “from people venting and who have expressed their displeasure in a perverted way.”

- States are considering copy-cat legislation despite setbacks for SB 1070. Texas lawmakers said Thursday they plan to move forward with plans for an immigration bill, and Tennessee lawmakers visited Arizona Friday to show support for SB 1070 and discuss their own measures. In Virginia, Prince William Board of County Supervisors Chairman Corey A. Stewart released a proposal Thursday for minimizing illegal immigration in the state. (Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell has been vague about whether he thinks Virginia should adopt an Arizona-style statute.) Indiana Democrats are bracing for immigration bill when their legislature returns in January.

- Meanwhile, Fremont, Nebraska suspended its immigration law Tuesday to save costs as it faces lawsuits from two civil rights groups.

- Boycotts of Arizona so far haven’t proved harmful to the state’s hotel industry.

- Marco Rubio, a candidate for Senate from Florida, said Thursday Arizona’s immigration law won’t necessarily harm the GOP’s image among Latino voters. To avoid backlash, he said Republicans should brand themselves as the party of “pro-legal immigration.”

Now that the Justice Department has shown that it will fight — and triumph over — states that try taking the lead on immigration, the Associated Press runs down what the judge’s ruling means for copy-cat states:

Lawmakers or candidates in as many as 18 states say they want to push similar measures when their legislative sessions start up again in 2011. Some lawmakers pushing the legislation said they would not be daunted by the ruling and plan to push ahead in response to what they believe is a scourge that needs to be tackled. [...]

In the meantime, other states like Utah will likely take up similar laws, possibly redesigned to get around Bolton’s objections.

“The ruling … should not be a reason for Utah to not move forward,” said Utah state Rep. Carl Wimmer, a Republican from Herriman City, who said he plans to co-sponsor a bill similar to Arizona’s next year and wasn’t surprised it was blocked. “For too long the states have cowered in the corner because of one ruling by one federal judge.”

Other state and local lawmakers have also said they plan to continue pushing Arizona-like legislation. In Tennessee, state senators told The Tennessean they will introduce legislation similar to SB 1070 when the legislature returns in January, while the South Carolina GOP vowed in a statement that the SB 1070 ruling would not deter them from creating a state immigration law.

If the SB 1070 ruling isn’t a deterrent, the high cost of lawsuits might be. On Tuesday — before the SB 1070 ruling — litigation from civil rights groups pushed a Nebraska city to suspend its tough immigration law.

- J.D. Hayworth and John McCain are still fighting for the “toughest on immigration” title in Arizona.

- Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.), the head of the House Immigration Reform Caucus, said he thinks President Ronald Reagan’s decision to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants in 1986 caused the large number of deaths by border crossers last year. “You have people up north who don’t understand what a monumental mistake it was to provide amnesty in ’86,” Bilbray told Upshot.

- Federal Judge Susan Bolton heard the Justice Department’s case against Arizona Thursday, but she gave little indication of how she will rule or when. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer asked Bolton to let the law take effect before she makes a ruling. (It’s set to go into effect July 29.) In the meantime, illegal immigrants are leaving the state.

- ICE officials said Tuesday they will speed up the visa process for performing artists trying to come to the U.S.

- Members of a Mexican American organization called the Brown Berets showed up at a rally supporting SB 1070 in Anaheim, Calif., to scream “Go back to Europe!” The group claims America once belonged to Mexico.

- U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement launched a new online detainee search tool Friday to help family members and lawyers locate people detained by immigration authorities.

- Former Rep. Tom Tancredo called Friday for Obama’s impeachment for failing to adequately enforce border security, a claim based on statements by Sen. Jon Kyl that the senator has since walked back.

- Hundreds of undocumented teens and young adults visited lawmakers as part of a mass mobilization for the DREAM Act, legislation that would help them gain citizenship. Some were arrested after a sit-in at Hart Senate Office Building.

Fremont General Corp. once one of the nation’s top 10 subprime lenders, has agreed to pay $10 million to resolve charges it preyed on low-income borrowers and used misleading terms to sell them loans they couldn’t afford, the Boston Herald reports. The Herald called Fremont “America’s most notorious subprime mortgage firm.” And according to Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, who brought the suit against Fremont, its practices provided a model of the kind of predatory lending that caused the housing crisis.

The Attorney General’s Office filed suit on October 5, 2007, in Suffolk Superior Court against Fremont and its parent company, Fremont General Corporation based on the defendants’ unfair and deceptive loan origination and sales conduct. The complaint specifically alleges that the company was selling risky loan products that it knew was designed to fail, such as 100% financing loans and “no documentation” loans.  The complaint further alleged that the company sold these loans through third party brokers and provided financial incentives to these brokers to sell high cost products.

That pretty much covers just about everything that went wrong with lending during the boom.

Fremont is in bankruptcy now after shuttering its subprime lending operations. But the settlement is still noteworthy, as a reminder of the kind of lending that went on. It also means Fremont finally faces some consequences for its predatory behavior — along with the $10 million fine, Fremont agreed to not foreclose on “unfair” loans, Coakley’s office said. That means at least some borrowers who got steered into high-rate Fremont loans will get a break.

Speaking of foreclosures, just last week we noted the sad case of an 85-year-old widow in California who was losing her home of 50 years to foreclosure.

Her lender? Fremont.

Maybe it’s California’s turn to face down the neighborhood bully.