Posted on 04/24/2010 8:08:12 AM PDT by VU4G10
The Arizona legislature has now passed the toughest measure against illegal immigration in the country, authorizing local police to stop and check the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally.
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds that 70% of likely voters in Arizona approve of the legislation, while just 23% oppose it.
(Excerpt) Read more at rasmussenreports.com ...
“BO won’t like this poll. He’s against upholding the laws of the land.”
___________________
Here is a letter by way of NAFBO today from a former police officer to Obama about the AZ law.
Note from NAFBPO: He is a former cop,. and has lived on the major smuggling trail in that area for many years. Now if more Americans had the courage to speak out.
April 23rd, 2010
President Barack Obama
The White House
Washington, D.C.
Dear President Obama:
It is not the new Arizona illegal immigration law that my Governor just signed that is misguided, it is you, my friend (I’m emulating Senator Juan McCain) who is misguided.
I know this may throw a monkey wrench into your goal of granting amnesty to the 20 million or more individuals who thumbed their noses at our law and made a mockery of any concept of national sovereignty and are residing here illegally, as many of them (hopefully) will now self-deport.
That would be a good thing, as it would save us the time and money otherwise needed to locate and return them to their country of origin, which this new law will greatly aid us in so doing.
The authority this law grants to our law-enforcement officials is long overdue and, if implemented years ago, we would not be facing our present illegal alien fiasco.
Now, other States of our Union are already considering passing similar laws which, while not surprising me, certainly pleases me. However, because of the number of democrats many of them now have as law makers, they may have to wait until after our next election to do so.
As for your amnesty aspirations, you can stuff them up your Pelosi.
Richard Humphries
Your home page shows an East Coast upbringing. I was raised in Arizona in the 50's - 70's.
The local police routinely checked for citizenship back then. In fact, it was quite common to see a TPD patrol car and a green Border Patrol van together: the cops simply called the BP when they suspected someone of being in the country illegally. The guy usually never even visited the city jail: went straight back to the border, where he was processed out.
The cars usually ended up on the hook, down to the impound lot.
All that has happened here is a return to the norm that existed after about 1915 and the Mexican civil war. The Border Patrol was created so that the Army and the local police did not have to carry the burden of turning away simple border jumpers. That didn't mean they could no longer legally do that, as La Raza has asserted for the last 30 years; simply meant there was a dedicated federal agency that was primary in the task.
Life in Arizona will become a lot better because of this. When was the last time you heard of some American guy blowing away a rancher in Sonora? Or invading a home and holding the owner hostage at knifepoint...as happened to my father in Tucson?
All of these things were perpetrated against Americans because enforcement had been willfully squelched by those acting in the interests of the Mexican nation. The Americans in Arizona have now struck back by asserting their right to their nationality and their safety.
No American should be afraid or worried. Quite the opposite.
Brewer definitely did the right thing by signing the bill but the lions-share of the credit for this bill goes to Russell Pearce who authored the bill, and the rest of the Arizona state congress for passing it.
By the way, Russell Pearce is one of those racists that has half-hispanic grandchildren. /sarc
70%? Wow, that's almost a majority, even in liberal la-la land.
“State and local law enforcement officials have the general power to investigate and arrest violators of federal immigration statutes without prior INS knowledge or approval, as long as they are authorized to do so by state law. There is no extant federal limitation on this authority.”
Nice! Do you think Obama has ever read it?? Or cares...
Being human is irrelevant. They are not American and that is all that matters
Excellent idea. I just did the same.
>> >> ...authorizing local police to stop and check the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally.
>> I don’t like this.
It is irrational to expect LEOs to not use subjective discretion.
Are you familiar with the criteria LEOs would use to identify a potential illegal alien?
How ingenious of you to point out that the majority of the illegals entering Arizona have brown skin. What a coincidence!
Hmm, excusing criminals from prosecution based on skin color, or upholding the rule of law regardless of skin color? Which approach is more constitutional? Hmm, let me think....
No, I am an American.
But I LOOK like a JEW.
Ya get my point?
In liberal la-la land, 99% is not a convincing majority. Only a single federal judge overturning centuries of social precedent and legal constitutionality on behalf of the 2% or 1% is majority enough for them.
King Obama already gave his corrupt communists judges the order.
Each State contracted their responsibility for defense against invasion to the US government; the US government has breached its contractual duties and failed to protect the States against invasion.
What do you do with an employee like that? Fire them, and get the job done however you see fit. Then, when the derelict contractor complains, what do you tell them?
Article I, Section. 10.
Clause 3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
Article IV, Section. 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
You are fromn California. In your state, illegals are allowed to attend public school. They are allowed treatment at any hospital. The damage is already done. What we don’t need, under this administration, are these types of discretionary powers afforded to any authorities. This power WILL be abused. Enforce the laws that already exist.
“...authorizing local police to stop and check the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally.
I don’t like this.”
I can understand your concern and, as a practical matter I don’t like the prospect of removing illegal aliens “by the seat of their pants” anymore than anyone relishes the thought of running off trespassers.
And as a legal matter, this site and its members take pride in supporting the Constitution over political ends.
So does the Arizona statute violate the 5th (due process) or 14th (equal protection of the laws, all persons) amendments to the US Constitution?
The Democrats, Obama, Sotomeyer, et al. will argue that those amendments should be interpreted to mean that any state action against “undocumented immigrants” is subject to a ‘strict scrutiny’ test, so that the state must show a compelling reason(s) for the action.
I submit to you that the legislation bears a rational relationship to a legitimate state interest in attempting to identify and deport illegal aliens, so that all the state has to do is to show a legitimate exercize of the state’s police power in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of Arizona residents.
If the test were the former, and not the latter, approximately 20-30% of all the inmates of state prisons in the southwest would not be latinos/chicanos/Mexicans (whatever they are demanding to be called this year) consuming the substance of Americans as public charges of the states of Arizona, California and the rest.
Funny how we read everyday of other countries in the world protecting their borders from illegal immigrants but only in the US is it forbidden to deny entry to illegals.
the other obvious subhead is “30% who oppose here illegally.”
Slippery slope. If the police can stop you on the street, or in a car and 'ask for your papers'; essentially single you out for an inspection - then can they stop you, and if they see something wrong, can arrest you. You are now no longer protected from search and arrest, as the whole 'Reasonable Cause' clause has been bypassed.
Next, will they be able to search your home for illegals - oh, and by the way we found that you have an unregistered firearm... Slippery slope, folks.
Now, as a aside - I want every illegal shipped out. Don't care if they have babies, kids in school, started a business - that's their problem, not mine. They created the mess, I don't see why they should get special consideration for breaking a law, then cluttering up their actions with even more screw ups. But, the idea of randomly asking people to produce proof of citizenship should be tied to a formal Gov't sanction .... like if we are at war.
We are at war, so for now, I'd let this slide. When we 'win' the war, this law would be limited in scope. Routine traffic stops, ect. But, the law is NOT tied to any gating function - so I have some concerns that a politican will pervert this law (I know, imagine a politican perverting a law for personal gain).
Can you please tell me how a fed is going to be more fair than a local? Or are you, like many in the Northeast, convinced that all of us out here in flyover country are knuckle-dragging fools who can’t possibly apply the law fairly?
I have a few incidents in mind that suggest just the opposite—Waco is one, Ruby Ridge is another, and let’s not forget Elian Gonzales.
Here’s another question. Someone posted the text of the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act earlier in the thread, so apparently a law like this is already on the books. How does the AZ law differ from this one, and if something very like it exists, how can it be declared unconstitutional? (Bearing in mind, I’m not an attorney, just a curious citizen...)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.