Arizona is at the vanguard of the immigration debate and legislation. The bill which is generating such widespread attention, SB1070, is now being used as a template by around 20 other states that are considering addressing this alien invasion through legal means. Meanwhile, the Obama Administration is aggressively pursuing a lawsuit against Arizona which runs counter to the sentiment of a significant majority of Americans - around 70%.
Why is Obama choosing such an action against a state whose legislation is nearly identical to the federal law and seeking to uphold it? This is a political gambit without a clear Constitutional basis. His actions are cynical, divisive, hateful and the arguments that he and his Administration have used are specious. This is all for political gain and for ideological goals.
The prime author of Arizona’s immigration legislation, State Senator Russell Pearce, discusses SB 1070, the severity of the illegal alien problem in the state including issues of crime and costs. Most people are not aware of the true severity of the problem which needs to be expeditiously, effectively and thoroughly addressed.
Arizona Immigration Law Author: Failure to Enforce Law Impeachable Offense
Jim Meyers 8/5/2010
State Sen. Russell Pearce, the chief architect of Arizona’s tough immigration law, tells Newsmax that the recent court ruling on the law was a “huge win” for Americans fighting to stem the flow of illegal aliens in this country.
Pearce, a Republican who represents parts of suburban Phoenix, also says the law “scares” the Obama administration because it will lead to the enforcement of immigration laws — and agrees that Obama’s failure to enforce those laws is an “impeachable” offense.
A highly decorated former law officer, Pearce crafted and co-sponsored Arizona SB1070, the immigration bill that was passed in April. Federal Judge Susan Bolton blocked some of the most controversial parts of the legislation, but Pearce remains cheered by the results.
“It’s been a long battle,” he says. “I prepared for the fistfight. I knew it was coming, getting sued by the open border crowd, the left-wing folks who fight you on any effort to enforce the law. So I knew what was coming.
“But we won. It’s a huge win. We won everything we really needed to win.
“The main thrust of 1070 was [against] sanctuary policies” that restrict the enforcement of immigration laws in certain jurisdictions. “They’re actually illegal under federal law. But [federal officials] don’t sue them, they sue Arizona because we decide to enforce the law.
“The other parts that she blocked temporarily were important tools, but what did go into effect, people need to understand, is that sanctuary policies in the state of Arizona are now illegal. She didn’t block that piece. So law enforcement may enforce the federal law to the fullest extent of the law.
“And if they don’t, we the people will sue government — that’s also in the bill. If they block or interfere or limit the enforcement of these laws in any manner, we will sue.
“The other piece that stayed in there is on day laborer issues. It’s a felony to hire them. We’re going to stop the hiring of illegal aliens that take a job from Americans. If you pick up an illegal alien day laborer, you’re going to go to jail. Your car is going to be impounded for 30 days, mandatory. So some significant pieces are still in effect and are huge in this bill.
“This law has teeth. That’s what scares people. That scares the Obama administration, which has a non-enforcement policy.”
Pearce was asked how he reacted to Sarah Palin’s comment that Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer “has the cojones that our president doesn’t have.”
“I reacted very well to that comment,” he tells Newsmax. “I appreciate the governor’s vigilance in defense of the bill.
“During the debate over 1070, a good friend of mine was murdered — right after [Janet] Napolitano, your Homeland Security director, said the border is more secure than ever. Simply not true.
“Fifteen Phoenix police officers, just to pick on Phoenix, were murdered or maimed at the hands of illegal aliens. Enough is enough. We spend $2.7 billion a year in Arizona to educate, medicate, and incarcerate. It’s the citizens that pay the price for this illegal alien invasion that can no longer be ignored.”
Pearce cited one Arizona family that has been terrorized by illegal aliens who come across the border, suffering “18 burglaries, three home invasions, multiple vehicles stolen. At night they hear a noise outside and they pray for daylight. They have their doors boarded, their windows boarded. And we have a federal government that stands by and thinks that’s O.K., that’s just collateral damage as they move forward with their agenda of amnesty. Enough is enough.”
Pearce says he is encouraged by other states that are following in Arizona’s footsteps and seeking to pass immigration legislation.
“Over 20 states are going to model legislation after 1070, so I’m extremely encouraged. In fact, I’ve talked to 34 states that would like to do it but don’t have a legislature or governor that would sign a bill.
“That’s what scares the Obama administration. They’re not worried about profiling. They’re not worried about anything but enforcement. What scares them is the fact that the laws are actually going to be enforced.”
He says the administration is worried about enforcement for two political reasons.
“First of all you have the open border anarchists who want to change the political makeup of America, and that’s through change in the demographics. Their best hope is open borders.
“Then you’ve got the other side, the corporate oligarchy, the profits-over-patriotism crowd. They want cheap labor. They don’t care what the cost is to America, and they have a stranglehold on Washington D.C., while 70 to 80 percent of Americans say close the borders, enforce the law.”
Pearce agrees with South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham that the policy established by the 14th Amendment — that anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen — needs to be changed because it was never intended to be applied to aliens.
Sen. Jon Kyl says that when he asked President Obama to secure the border, Obama’s response was that if he did, it would remove the incentive for Republicans to negotiate on comprehensive immigration reform. Former Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo has called the refusal to enforce the law an impeachable offense. Pearce was asked if he agrees.
“Absolutely,” he declares.
“Five to ten thousand folks come across that border daily, and what’s coming across — 20 percent have criminal convictions — are gang members, drug smugglers, human smugglers, child molesters, rapists. It’s an invasion. It’s in violation of the Constitution. Yes, it’s impeachable. He not only neglects to do it, now he’s refusing to do it. It’s impeachable.”
As for reports that a Mexican drug cartel has placed a $1 million bounty on the head of tough Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Pearce says “the silence is almost deafening from Washington, D.C.”
The illegal immigration situation is far more extensive and pernicious than most Americans suspect. This is a direct consequence of depraved, self-serving and reckless policies of and suppression of information by Obama and the Democratic controlled federal government. Complicit and abetting this is the intentional avoidance of the issue by a vast majority of the news media which constitutes malfeasance by the press. It is no wonder that Arizona, backed into a corner by the federal government’s willful abdication of its Constitutional responsibility regarding border security, was forced to enact its immigration legislation.
The following article characterizes the severity of the illegal immigration problem regarding both the scope and magnitude of the crimes and the politicization of the issue. It is a real eye opener.
Immigration enforcement union took a no-confidence vote in its leadership
Joel S. Gehrke Jr. 08/04/10
Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents believe overwhelmingly that their department leadership has become so politicized as to compromise the effectiveness of ICE and the safety of American people. Their union has released a letter announcing its recent unanimous “vote of no confidence” in ICE agency heads, accusing them of “misleading the American public” regarding illegal immigration in order to further a pro-amnesty agenda.
In June, the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council — an AFL-CIO affiliate — and affiliated local councils cast a unanimous 259-0 vote of no confidence in ICE Director John Morton and Assistant Director Phyllis Coven. In a letter announcing the vote, the National Council criticized the directors for “misguided and reckless initiatives,” and said their leaders have “abandoned the Agency’s core mission of enforcing United States immigration laws and providing for public safety, and have instead directed their attention to campaigning for policies and programs related to amnesty.”
Janice Kephart at the Center for Immigration Studies has the letter, which includes several biting indictments of ICE failures by ICE agents. For instance:
Senior ICE leadership dedicates more time to campaigning for immigration reforms aimed at large scale amnesty legislation, than advising the American public and Federal lawmakers on the severity of the illegal immigration problem, and the need for more manpower and resources within the ICE ERO to address it. ICE ERO is currently overwhelmed by the massive criminal alien problem in the United States resulting in the large-scale release of criminals back into local communities.
Kind of puts the Arizona illegal immigration enforcement in perspective, doesn’t it?
While ICE reports internally that more than 90 percent of ICE detainees are first encountered in jails after they are arrested by local police for criminal charges, ICE senior leadership misrepresents this information publicly in order to portray ICE detainees as being non-criminal in nature to support the Administration’s position on amnesty and relaxed security at ICE detention facilities.
The majority of ICE ERO Officers are prohibited from making street arrests or enforcing United States immigration laws outside of the institutional (jail) setting. This has effectively created “amnesty through policy” for anyone illegally in the United States who has not been arrested by another agency for a criminal violation.
Arizona is by no means is the only state that has considered or enacted illegal immigration legislation. Virginia and several other states are working on laws that are fairly similar to Arizona’s SB1020 in order to more effectively address the multitude of problems associated with illegal aliens. This all is in response to the federal government’s abdication of its constitutional responsibility to secure our borders and protect the citizens of this country.
Is Virginia the Next Arizona? State Lawmakers Fuel Immigration Debate
August 03, 2010 FoxNews.com
A handful of Virginia lawmakers may be positioning their state to be the next battleground in the immigration debate.
Virginia, one of nearly 20 states toying with the idea of an Arizona-style immigration law, hurtled onto the national radar screen this week after Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli ruled that police can ask people about their immigration status during routine stops.
While a northern Virginia county has been at the forefront of the push for stricter local immigration laws for three years, none of this activity has prompted the kind of nationwide backlash -- in the form of boycotts and a federal government lawsuit -- that Arizona triggered with its law in April. Those behind the Virginia proposals, including a proposed statewide law, are hoping their state can avoid the kind of public relations and legal pitfalls that have, at least temporarily, ensnared Arizona.
"This is good policy. ... It's both constitutional and prudent," said Robert Marshall, the Republican state delegate who originally requested the ruling from Cuccinelli, who is also a Republican. "Our actions here can't be dismissed."
Marshall told FoxNews.com he has asked Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell to issue an executive order codifying what Cuccinelli wrote. He expressed doubt that any single piece of legislation will pass through the state Senate, but he suggested a carefully worded directive could help shape the national debate.
He said Arizona went astray by requiring law enforcement officers to ask about immigration status. Cuccinelli describes Virginia's policy as discretionary.
"Unlike Arizona, you wouldn't say every time you stop somebody, do this," Marshall said. "I think that was one of the reasons the Arizona law was (blocked)." Marshall said he's confident Virginia's policy would be held up in court if challenged.
Cuccinelli also cited that difference as a key distinction between the two laws.
"The difference, of course, is that the Arizona law enforcement officer is going to be under the cloud of the requirement of that statute," he said. "But the way we operate it here, we're in good shape."
A spokesman for Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said the governor is reviewing her state's law to see if it can be refined in light of the court decision blocking key parts of it, but was not sure whether she was considering the possibility of making immigration checks discretionary as opposed to mandatory.
Though Cuccinelli's ruling drew widespread attention, it's unclear how much direct impact it will have on Virginia law enforcement.
Virginia Senate Majority Leader Richard Saslaw, a Democrat, said most police forces won't change their policies in light of the opinion.
"Is it going to affect a single thing? The answer is no," he said. "A majority of the police forces won't bother with it."
Saslaw noted that per Cuccinelli's opinion, state officers are still advised against arresting anyone for a civil immigration offense. Saslaw said he doesn't see Virginia, a non-border state, becoming a focal point of the immigration debate any time soon, and he rejected the idea that McDonnell could issue an order codifying Cuccinelli's ruling.
"We don't have a dictatorship in Virginia," Saslaw said. "It would carry absolutely not a shred of legal validity."
McDonnell spokeswoman Stacey Johnson said Marshall was not specifically calling for an executive order. The actual letter to the governor asked McDonnell to "direct all appropriate law enforcement officers of the commonwealth to implement the policies referenced" in the Cuccinelli decision.
Regardless of how Cuccinelli's ruling is interpreted, a few Virginia lawmakers are pushing hard to keep their state in the middle of the immigration furor. Though it's not anywhere close to a border state, Virginia's illegal immigrant population, concentrated mostly in the north, has been pegged at about 300,000 by the Pew Hispanic Center. Any crime connected to that community has the potential to feed the debate.
Just as the killing of rancher Robert Krentz by a suspected illegal immigrant fueled the push for border security in Arizona, a recent killing in Virginia has stirred emotions over the issue. An illegal immigrant on Sunday was involved in a crash that killed one nun and injured two others -- he reportedly had a prior drunk-driving record and was going through deportation proceedings.
The crash happened in Prince William County, which is ground zero for immigration controversy in Virginia. Board of County Supervisors Chairman Corey Stewart seized on the incident, as he continued to push a proposed immigration law similar to Arizona's.
Stewart said in an e-mail to FoxNews.com that Virginia will "adjust our course" in light of the Arizona case and said he hopes the federal government decides to sue his state too.
"Virginia has shown in the past that people care about this issue even 2,500 miles away from the most porous parts of our southern border. Especially in Prince William County, we are very close to the nation's Capitol. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and President Obama can't ignore what is happening in their own backyard," he wrote.
Prince William County, which Marshall represents, has a local law that requires police to ask about the immigration status of anyone they arrest. Stewart said Cuccinelli's ruling doesn't dramatically change anything there but that "it is good have the Virginia AG on board."
Stewart is pushing for a statewide policy to require police to check the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest. He claims the proposal anticipates the legal pitfalls that trapped Arizona. He has launched a political action committee to raise money for a public campaign in support of the bill, and he has a started a website, www.virginiaruleoflaw.com, where he is trying to collect 100,000 signatures.
Saslaw ridiculed the push.
"The bill ain't gonna make it through the General Assembly," he said. "It won't even get to a law."
The early signs from the judicial hearings on Arizona’s immigration law that is being challenged by the Obama Administration are auspicious for the state. Comments made by the judge who had been appointed by Bill Clinton appear to challenge the basis of the federal government’s case.
The citizens of Arizona (and in the rest of the country as well) are hoping that this portends a quick and favorable outcome to the Obama Administration’s politically motivated lawsuit.
Arizona should ultimately sue Obama for legal costs and for the accumulated costs that illegal immigrants have burdened Arizona with.
We all need to stand behind Arizona in its defense of the citizens not only of the state but also of the rest of the country. Write Governor Brewer letters of support and encouragement. You can also make an online donation to the cause that will ultimately help all of us.
Hearing on Arizona immigration law begins
Jerry Markon Washington Post July 23, 2010
PHOENIX -- A federal judge pushed back Thursday against a contention by the Obama Justice Department that a tough new Arizona immigration law set to take effect next week would cause "irreparable harm" and intrude into federal immigration enforcement.
"Why can't Arizona be as inhospitable as they wish to people who have entered or remained in the United States?" U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton asked in a pointed exchange with Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler. Her comment came during a rare federal court hearing in the Justice Department's lawsuit against Arizona and Gov. Jan Brewer (R).
Bolton, a Democratic appointee, also questioned a core part of the Justice Department's argument that she should declare the law unconstitutional: that it is "preempted" by federal law because immigration enforcement is an exclusive federal prerogative.
"How is there a preemption issue?" the judge asked. "I understand there may be other issues, but you're arguing preemption. Where is the preemption if everybody who is arrested for some crime has their immigration status checked?"
At issue in Thursday's hearing, argued in a tan-colored "special proceedings" courtroom" inside the federal courthouse, was whether Bolton would grant a preliminary injunction to stop the law from taking effect while the federal lawsuit proceeds.
As dozens of protesters marched outside, the hearing marked the first round in the Obama administration's effort to stop the state's crackdown on illegal immigration. The tension in the courtroom reflected a broader national debate over what has become a political divisive issue: whether police should have the power to question people they suspect are in the United States illegally.
"The regulation of immigration is unquestionably, exclusively, a federal power," Kneedler told a rapt courtroom. Brewer, whose fierce criticism of the federal lawsuit has helped her popularity at home, watched silently from the front row, drawing a "Good afternoon, Governor" from the judge.
Lawyers for Brewer argued with equal force that the legislation, scheduled to take effect July 29, is a legal expression of a sovereign state's right to secure its borders against a tide of illegal immigration. The federal government, the lawyers said, has failed to act.
"We keep hearing that we can't really do anything about these illegal aliens -- Arizona should just deal with it," said John J. Bouma, Arizona's lead attorney. "Well, the status quo is simply unacceptable."
The law, which Brewer signed in April, empowers police to question people they have a "reasonable suspicion" are illegal immigrants and to send them to federal authorities for possible deportation. President Obama has strongly condemned the law, and the Justice Department filed suit July 6, setting up an unusual clash between the federal government and a state over who should enforce the nation's immigration laws.
Bolton did not indicate how she might rule, saying only that she will take the matter "under advisement." But she did subject Justice Department lawyers to some pointed questions.
Kneedler responded to her query about why Arizona authorities don't have the right to be inhospitable to illegal immigrants by saying the law has given the state the power to enforce immigration law "in, frankly, an unprecedented and dramatic way."
"It is not for one of our states to be inhospitable in the way this statute does," Kneedler said, citing as his main argument the legal doctrine of "preemption."
Based on the Constitution's supremacy clause, it says federal law trumps state statutes. Because the federal government has "preeminent authority to regulate immigration matters," the government's lawsuit argues, the Arizona law must be struck down.
Bolton questioned key parts of that argument, especially relating to a section of the law that appears to require immigration-status checks if police stop someone for another law enforcement purpose and suspect the person is an illegal immigrant.
Kneedler said the conflict with federal law comes because the status checks are mandatory, which could lead to federal agencies being overwhelmed with deportation requests. Top officials at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, whose agents will handle most of the calls from Arizona authorities if the law takes effect, have said they will not necessarily respond to every call.
"There really is no flexibility," Kneedler said.
He added that the Arizona law might lead to police harassment of U.S. citizens and is threatening to harm vital cooperation along the border with Mexican authorities, who have strongly condemned the law. "These are very concrete harms, very substantial foreign policy concerns," he said.
Bouma ridiculed the foreign policy concerns.
"Foreign outrage doesn't make the law preempted," he said. He accused the Obama administration of ignoring requests from Brewer and numerous other governors for more help in securing the border.
"You can't catch them if you don't know about them," he said. "And they don't want to know about them."
Bolton is hearing six other lawsuits filed against the Arizona law. A former Arizona state court judge, she was nominated for the federal bench by Democratic President Bill Clinton, but legal observers say she is hard to pigeonhole ideologically.
Outside the gleaming glass-and-white iron courthouse, named for former Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor, an angry subtext reflected the divide over how to handle the nation's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants.
Opponents of the Arizona law clasped hands, prayed and held signs condemning it.
"The law is racist. The police are harassing us because of our brown skin," said Marta Calderon, who sat next to a painting of the Virgin Mary affixed with a sign saying "Stop SB1070," as the immigration law is known.
Nearby, Brandy Baron waved an American flag and expressed her support for the law and her "disgust" at efforts to overturn it.
"I am amazed that the Justice Department would have the nerve to sue us for trying to get laws that are already on the books enforced," she said.
Arizona’s new immigration law S.B. 1070, which has been relentlessly attacked by many liberals and the news media yet is overwhelmingly supported by Americans, is also serving as the prototype for immigration legislation in several other states as discussed below. Americans are sick and tired of the problems associated with illegal immigration: increased crime and violence, massive unreimbursed costs such as for healthcare, education, welfare, and the judicial system which are presently being paid by us through our tax dollars, burdens on our schools and even what is becoming a ubiquitous finding: bilingual signs and communications.
Despite this, the Obama Administration is fighting this law under the pretense that it necessarily requires “profiling”. This is not the true reason, however, as the legislation is essentially a replica of the federal law that adds controls to mitigate the “risk” of profiling. (Of course, liberals want to label “profiling” a racist action when in fact profiling represents the most logical, efficient and prudent way to detect what one is looking for which in this situation, are illegal aliens.)
Among the real reasons that Obama is against the law is for political purposes. He wants more of the Hispanic vote. As we have noted in previous posts, the fact that he would intentionally keep the border unsecured which also affords terrorists the ability to sneak into this country, is inexcusable, irresponsible, contemptuous and actions of what could be termed an anti-President.
Let’s reiterate. Obama resolutely refuses to secure our borders for personal political reasons which consequently places America in much greater jeopardy for future terrorism by allowing terrorist to infiltrate undetected into our country. This also financially burdens all 50 states (or in his mind, 57 states) and their citizens who have to bear all the attendant costs associated with these illegals which is estimated to be around $113 billion per year.
And one more thing. Ideology and narcissism aside, the Obama Administration and some liberal groups state that the cost of deporting the entire illegal alien population would be prohibitively expensive – estimated to be $285 billion over 5 years. The cost for them staying here during these 5 years is $565 billion ($113 billion per year times 5 years).
Interesting! We could actually save $280 billion over these five years if these illegal immigrants were sent back where they came from. That is $56 billion per year in net savings which would then jump to more than $113 billion per year after these first 5 years.
No wonder the federal government is against this: it would save us money instead of being a money losing proposition which the Democrats feel more comfortable with!
Arizona Immigration Law Emerges as Model for Other States
July 7, 2010
Arizona’s immigration law, considered controversial by some and under legal assault by the Obama administration, is fast emerging as a popular model in other states where illegal immigration is a hot-button issue.
And while protests against the law have drawn thousands to marches across the country, polls have consistently showed a majority of Americans favor the get-tough approach against illegal immigration.
At least three other states could pass similar legislation next year, and in many others, like Florida, GOP candidates are filming campaign ads and pushing debates favoring the law.
Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah have each taken steps against illegal immigration, and politicians in the three states are advocating further measures when their legislatures reconvene early next year, according to The Washington Post.
Meanwhile, lawmakers in at least 14 other states drew up bills that permit police officers to question anyone they suspect of being in the county illegally – the core issue of the Arizona law.
But it’s an open question in many of those states whether these bills would make it past sitting governors, many of whom are Democrats. In Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah, however, political factors improve the chances that state legislatures could follow Arizona's lead when they convene in 2011, according to the Post.
Oklahoma was actually the first state, not Arizona, to adopt legislation that was the toughest ever against undocumented immigrants. That happened in 2007. The measure made it a felony to knowingly provide transport or shelter to an illegal immigrant, and blocked illegal immigrants from obtaining driver's licenses and tuition.
The lawmaker responsible for the measure, Republican state Rep. Randy Terrill, has said he wants to go even further with another bill next year that would seize property from businesses that knowingly employ undocumented immigrants.
Terrill cited the arrest of an alleged Mexican drug cartel member last week as evidence that an "Arizona-plus" measure is needed urgently. He said the effect of Arizona's law had been to push illegal immigrants "straight down Interstate 40" toward Oklahoma, according to the Post.
In South Carolina, GOP Gov. Mark Sanford touted a comprehensive set of new measures against illegal immigration as the strictest yet when he signed it into law in 2008. The measure forced businesses to check the immigration status of their workers.
Harboring and transporting illegal immigrants also became a state crime. State lawmakers want to build on it and were quick this year to draw up an Arizona-style bill, introducing it less than a week after the Arizona measure had been signed.
"We had a bill that was introduced this year that was very similar to the final version of the Arizona legislation. It was too late for us to move on it, but I have every expectation a new bill will be introduced in January," Republican state Sen. Larry Martin told the Post.
"As long as an officer has a lawful reason to question someone, and then a suspicion develops [that] they are an undocumented person, then I think our law enforcement folks ought to be able to pursue that," he said.
In Utah, pro-immigrant advocates fear that new legislation clamping down on illegal immigration is inevitable next year. Several lawmakers there are advocating a crackdown, according to the Post.
On paper, Arizona's controversial new immigration law is not that different from the federal version. But the key difference is this: Arizona wants every illegal immigrant caught and deported. The federal government says treating all 11 million of the nation's illegal immigrants as criminals would overwhelm the system.
In its lawsuit challenging the Arizona law, the Justice Department says its policy is to focus on dangerous immigrants: gang members, drug traffickers, threats to national security. Law-abiding immigrants without documentation would largely be left alone.
Homeland Security officials say the government cannot possibly find, arrest and deport everyone who is here illegally. And trying to do so would also upset a balance crafted by Congress that takes into account humanitarian interests and foreign relations.
But proponents of the Arizona solution insist that's no reason not to try. And they say the state's toughest-in-the-nation law is a reasonable way to start.
"If it's really the case that they don't have enough resources to enforce the laws that Congress has passed, it would seem it's incumbent on them to go back to Congress and ask for more resources," said Steven Camarota, research director at the center for Immigration Studies, a group that favors stricter enforcement of immigration laws. "But since they don't do that, it sort of undermines the argument."
Arizona's new law is nearly identical to federal immigration law. At issue is how it is enforced. The federal government says the state law is unconstitutional because it usurps federal authority to protect U.S. borders and American citizens. Arizona counters that the federal government is not doing its job, which forces state officials to step in.
State lawmakers argue that the federal government already enlists local authorities to identify illegal immigrants who have been arrested for other crimes. The new law, they say, just extends that to police patrols.
The federal government says the law goes too far by making it a state crime to be in Arizona illegally and requiring police to question the immigration status of anyone they encounter who is believed to be undocumented.
The furor over the Arizona law is overblown, Camarota said Wednesday. It does not envision mass deportations or roundups, just a slow but steady pressure on illegal immigrants to leave Arizona — either for their home countries or for another state.
The number of illegal immigrants in the country fell for the first time this decade in 2007, and dropped another 800,000 between 2008 and 2009, primarily due to the recession and increased enforcement efforts.
As of January 2009, an estimated 10.8 million people were in the country illegally, 1 million less than the 2007 peak, according to the Department of Homeland Security.
Deportations have been increasing, climbing from 185,944 in 2007 to 387,790 last year.
Many critics argue the federal government cannot selectively enforce immigration law, but it's common for law enforcement at all levels to prioritize. Small-time pot dealers do not receive the same level of investigation or prosecution as big-time heroin traffickers. The government has also tolerated medical marijuana in 14 states.
But Arizona's law has brought selective enforcement — and the differences that exist even among police agencies — into clearer focus.
Those differences are stark, even in the Phoenix metro area. Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris says in an affidavit supporting the federal suit that he will probably have to move detectives focused on violent crime to street patrol because regular officers will be busy enforcing Arizona's new law.
But Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who has been at the forefront of the effort to empower local authorities to enforce immigration laws, routinely assigns deputies to crime sweeps where they target illegal immigrants.
The federal government is worried that other states will follow Arizona's lead, overwhelming federal agencies with non-criminal illegal immigrants who will cost the government millions to deport.
A March study by the liberal Center for American Progress estimated that deporting the entire illegal immigration population and securing the borders would cost $285 billion over five years.
In the government lawsuit, officials with Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection declared they will be forced to shift resources from major cases to minor ones if the law goes into effect as scheduled on July 29.
Five other lawsuits, filed by immigrant-rights groups, the American Civil Liberties Union and individuals, are already before a federal judge in Phoenix. The federal challenge filed Tuesday is expected to be transferred to the same judge, who has hearings set for next week on requests to block the law from taking effect.
The federal lawsuit focuses on a core constitutional concern — balancing power between the states and the federal government. More specifically, the issue centers on the long-running "pre-emption" legal argument that says federal law trumps state law.
The government sidestepped concerns about the potential for racial profiling and civil rights violations most often raised by immigration advocates. Experts said those are weaker arguments that do not belong in a federal legal challenge.
Material from the Associated Press was used in this story.
The immigration debate today is... well not really a debate. In both actions as well as verbally (to Sen. John Kyle of Arizona), Obama has recklessly and corruptly indicated the he will make sure that the United States continues to have open, unsecured borders until an agreement can be reached in a comprehensive reform that includes full amnesty for illegals.
Furthermore, his comments promote divisiveness among the states, specifically encouraging verbal and economic attacks on Arizona which is trying to protect itself from being overrun by the violence of the Mexican drug cartel and gangs and the deluge of destitute illegal aliens who are creating a budgetary crisis due to the billions of dollars a year that they cost the state.
Obama is the anti-President, one who seeks to divide and destroy rather than unite and protect. Such is the bedrock of his radical anti-American philosophy.
If you questions this assessment, just scrutinize his destructive, freedom restricting, financially reckless, disdainful actions and inactions over his first 18 months in office. To gain further insight, we also suggest that you read the recent bestseller, the Manchurian President by Aaron Klein.
Contrast this to the philosophy of Teddy Roosevelt on immigrants from over 100 years ago. Below are some of his thoughts on Immigrants and being an American:
"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes herein good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language.. And we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
From 1907
"Let us say to the immigrant not that we hope he will learn English, but
that he has got to learn it. Let the immigrant who does not learn it go
back. He has got to consider the interest of the United States or he
should not stay here. He must be made to see that his opportunities in
this country depend upon his knowing English and observing American
standards. The employer cannot be permitted to regard him only as an
industrial asset."
"We must in every way possible encourage the immigrant to rise, help him
up, give him a chance to help himself. If we try to carry him he may
well prove not well worth carrying. We must in turn insist upon his
showing the same standard of fealty to this country and to join with us
in raising the level of our common American citizenship."
Roosevelt strongly called for assimilation of these immigrants so they would become equal "Americans". This would be best served with the need for them to learn to speak English which would allow them to advance and become productive citizens. This is a constructive, positive approach.
What does Obama encourage? Essentially a balkanized America where illegal immigrants are granted rights, privileges, and services and allowed to maintain their primary allegiance to their homeland - and with nothing expected in return. Except, of course, their votes as Democrats. A destructive, financially ruinous, welfare dependency approach.
Print This Post
Subscribe to Our RSS Feed
Follow Us on Twitter
Comments