(CNN) — The federal judge presiding over the Obama administration’s lawsuit against Arizona has blocked a key provision of the state’s new immigration law. But that is unlikely to change the public’s mind.
After three months of bitter, unrelenting debate, polls show 60 percent of voters are strongly in favor of the law. Proponents of immigration reform, including the president, have largely ignored this support for the law, writing it off as anti-immigrant, if not downright bigoted.
But the truth is there can be no hope of passing an immigration overhaul opposed by 60 percent of the public. And perhaps instead of fighting the majority and questioning its motives, we ought to try listening to its concerns. Maybe, just maybe, that could point the way to the compromise we need on immigration.
Almost every major pollster has asked Americans about Arizona’s SB 1070, which requires police to determine the immigration status of people they stop if they also suspect those people are in the U.S. illegally — the provision blocked by the judge.
According to the latest Rasmussen Reports poll, 47% of democrats are still having trouble deciding between their four choices of Senator. Rodney Glassman holds a slight lead over Cathy Eden 15% to 11%. Parraz follows with 10% with John Dougherty ending the circus at 7%.
The debate held by PBS last night probably did not help sway their decision. Again, the question of which of them supported the socialist health care plan was carefully avoided which shows what a poison topic it still is for democrats. Continue reading “Dems duke it out!” »
The Arizona Latino Republican Association will become the first Hispanic organization in the country to actively oppose the Department of Justice’s lawsuit against the state of Arizona’s new immigration law.
PHOENIX – The federal judge who will decide whether to block Arizona’s sweeping new immigration law has dealt with the realities of the state’s porous border for nearly 10 years.
Susan Bolton sentenced a Mexican smuggler to 16 years in prison for leading 14 illegal immigrants to their death in the broiling Arizona desert.
She decided in 2002 that Border Patrol officials had legal immunity and couldn’t be sued for their part in a 1997 immigrant roundup that led to 430 arrests and drew complaints that Hispanics who were U.S. citizens were harassed because of their appearance. Continue reading “Judge in Arizona Case Well-Versed in Immigration” »
Arizona has enacted a law that enables state and local police to support federal immigration enforcement, in a carefully circumscribed manner. This moderate statute is under vicious attack by the Obama administration and assorted amnesty advocates. Yet Arizona and her sister states in the Southwest could take dramatically stronger actions to bring order to the border. And they would have both history and the Constitution on their side.
History first. In 1916, criminal gangs rivaled the authority of the Mexican government. Led by Pancho Villa, they launched attacks against Americans on both sides of the border. Following a bloody raid that killed American soldiers and civilians in New Mexico, President Woodrow Wilson dispatched 15,000 state militia to the border and sent Gen. John J. “Black Jack” Pershing and thousands more soldiers into Mexico after Villa and his bandits. Once Pershing’s force clashed with the Mexican army, Wilson ordered another 75,000 National Guardsmen to the border region. Supported by an enraged American citizenry, Wilson reacted swiftly and with substantial force to secure our southern border and drive out what was, in effect, a marauding army of Mexican invaders.
President Obama has made it clear that he wants to have comprehensive immigration reform after suing over Arizona’s new law, which the President hopes to block with his efforts. Though the President is trying hard to block the new law, many are not doing much to help, and in fact many, even Democrats, are against Obama on this case.
Past Presidents have found that immigration policy is a huge issue, but one that is torn between many opposing views. Bush tried to go after comprehensive immigration reform, but was shot down on his attempts. Like past Presidents, Obama has found himself in a very similar circumstance despite being on the opposite side of the political arena. Republicans are against him, and even those in the Democratic party are against him on this issue.
Obama’s comprehensive reform would add a new policy allowing illegal aliens in the United States to acquire residency if they paid all back taxes, had background checks performed, and waited in the line of those who are trying to come into the US legally. The Justice Department under Obama is currently suing over Arizona’s new anti-illegal immigrant law in order to block the new law.
PHOENIX — Border governors are going ahead with their annual conference — without Jan Brewer and not in Arizona.
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said Thursday he is putting together a meeting for Santa Fe in late September. That is close to the same time that Brewer was planning to host the event in Phoenix.
That was before Brewer cancelled the annual meeting after the governors of the six Mexican border states refused to come to Arizona in the wake of her decision to sign a tough new immigration law. Chihuahua Gov. Jose Reyes Baeza Terrazas, in his letter to Brewer pulling out of the conference, called SB 1070 “discriminatory, racist and violates the International Civil Rights Agreement established in 1976.” Continue reading “Brewer turns a cold shoulder to N.M. border conference” »
Tucson, AZ (KOLD) – Arizona’s immigration enforcement law, S.B. 1070, is set to take effect in a little over two weeks, but Pima County made a deal more than two years ago to help enforce federal immigration law.
It’s part of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement 287(g) program that allows state and local police agencies to receive delegated authority for immigration enforcement.
So I guess all that hysteria about the Arizona immigration law was much ado about nothing. After months of telling us that the Nazis had seized Arizona, when the Obama administration finally got around to suing, its only objection was that the law was “pre-empted” by federal immigration law.
With the vast majority of Americans supporting Arizona’s inoffensive little law, the fact that Obama is suing at all suggests that he consulted exclusively with the craziest people in America before filing this complaint. (Which is to say, Eric Holder’s Justice Department.)
But apparently even they could find nothing discriminatory about Arizona’s law. It’s reassuring to know that, contrary to earlier indications, government lawyers can at least read English.
Instead, the administration argues, federal laws on immigration pre-empt Arizona’s law under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.
State laws are pre-empted by federal law in two circumstances: When there is a conflict — such as “sanctuary cities” for illegals or California’s medical marijuana law — or when Congress has so thoroughly regulated a field that there is no room for even congruent state laws.
Well, if you watched the debate between Democratic candidates, you found out that Mr. John Dougherty will be aggressive, Ms. Cathy Eden will be exact, and Mr. Randy Parraz will be a good union leader and Mr. Rodney Glassman is the proud Vice-Mayor of a sanctuary city. They will all get us out of the war even though they are running for Senator and not Commander-in-Chief. Frank Camacho hosted the debate. Oh, yeah. And they also know all Arizonans don’t like SB-1070. Yet, one of them mentioned the 70% approval rating.
All of them carefully stayed away from the subject of Obamacare, but you can expect the Republicans to be asked about it. They, also, carefully avoided telling you that they are going to push to pass cap-and-trade to fight the evils of global warming, or climate change, or weather re-enhancement, or whatever they are calling it these days.
“Don’t come into my country wearing a Mexican flag. It’s insulting.”—Mayor Melissa A. Melendez.
The city councils of Hemet and Lake Elsinore, both in Riverside County, approved proclamations Tuesday in support of Arizona’s controversial anti-illegal immigration law.
The Yorba Linda City Council in Orange County approved a similar resolution earlier this month, countering actions taken by leaders in cities such as Los Angeles, who voted to boycott doing business with Arizona companies in protest of the law.
PHOENIX – Retirees and other residents from all over the country were among those who donated nearly $500,000 to help Arizona defend its immigration enforcement law, with most chipping in $100 or less, according to an analysis of documents obtained Thursday by The Associated Press.
The donations, 88 percent of which came from through the Arizona defense fund’s website, surged this week after the federal government sued Tuesday to challenge the law. A document from Gov. Jan Brewer’s office showed that 7,008 of the 9,057 online contributions submitted by Thursday morning were made in the days following the government’s filing.
May 22, 2012 1813 Richard Wagner 1931 Kenny Ball 1950 Bernie Taupin 1859 Sir Arthur Conan Doyle 1938 Susan Strasberg 1959 Morrissey 1907 Lord Laurence Olivier 1946 George Best 1970 Naomi Campbell
Have a question concerning the Constitution and your rights? You can try our U.S. Succinct Court Office.. WE ARE NOT LAWYERS and we CANNOT GIVE ADVISE on any case that may be pending for or against you. We can, however, provide links to resources that might answer your questions. Feel free to use our Contact Form.
The Constitutional Republic Party web site is NOT a non-profit organization for tax purposes. We do not provide candidates for office, but we support candidates with Constitutional views. Our current purpose is to provide education about the true purpose of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and other historic documents. We do provide information and news which may have an impact on your Constitutional rights.
We will publish almost any, intelligent articles and opinions that do not contain cursing and do not advocate physical violence against an individual or group of individuals---even if they are belligerent. Those opinions expressed and comments in reply to such opinions are solely those of the authors.
Loading ...
