Federal Appeals Court Upholds Injunction Against Arizona Immigration Law

Back in July, a Federal District Court Judge enjoined Arizona from enforcing the key provisions of its controversial immigration law, specially those that authorized local police to require suspected illegal immigrants to provide immigration papers even without a valid arrest. Today, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that injunction in an appeal that the state had filed almost immediately after the decision:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has ruled that lower federal court judge was right in her decision to halt parts of Senate Bill 1070 from going into effect last year.

The ruling comes almost a year after Gov. Jan Brewer signed the nation’s toughest immigration law into effect and five months after the appeals court was asked to consider overturning the injunction issued by U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton in the lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice.

The original lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of SB 1070, arguing that immigration regulation is the jurisdiction of the federal government and not the state.

Bolton imposed the injunction on four parts of the law: clauses that require that police check the immigration status of anyone they stop and then hold them until their status is verified – no matter how long it takes; she agreed that state law requiring immigrants to carry immigration papers may be pre-empted by federal law and that police officers could not determine whether a person had committed an offense that could lead to deportation; and she questioned a statute barring illegal immigrants from seeking jobs.

During the appeals court hearing in November, the three federal judges peppered lawyers on both sides with testy rapid-fire legal questions.

One judge asked Arizona’s lawyer, John Bouma, how the state could enforce federal law. “If I don’t pay my federal income tax, can the state make me?” the judge asked.

The appellate panel seemed not to have problems with police officers asking about immigration status, but struggled with the notion implicit in the law that detainees could be held indefinitely while their immigration status was confirmed.

The judges also questioned how a law enforcement officer could determine what constitutes a removable offense.

More from The Washington Post:

In the 2-1 decision, the court found that U.S. District Judge Susan R. Bolton “did not abuse” her discretion in blocking parts of that law that would, among other things, require police to check immigration status if they stop someone while enforcing other laws.

The court ruled only on whether Bolton’s order should be upheld, not on whether the Arizona measure is legal, and the Justice Department’s move to have the entire law declared unconstitutional will proceed. But the judges gave strong indications that they accept the administration’s argument that the legislation is unconstitutional and would rule that way in the end.

“The Arizona statute before us has become a symbol,” Judge Richard A. Paez wrote in the majority opinion. “For those sympathetic to immigrants to the United States, it is a challenge and a chilling foretaste of what other states might attempt.”

Paez, joined by Judge John T. Noonan, used strong language as he appeared to endorse the administration’s position that Arizona’s law intrudes on federal immigration enforcement and is “preempted” by federal law.

“Arizona has attempted to hijack a discretionary role that Congress delegated to the Executive,” the decision said, adding that the Arizona law would “usurp” the U.S. attorney general’s role in directing any state enforcement of federal immigration laws.

The opinion is embedded below, and the Court for the most part accepts the reasoning that Judge Bolton employed in her decision in July. At this point, the state can ask for an en banc hearing on the injunction, or appeal it to the Supreme Court. While the ruling on the injunction doesn’t necessarily indicate what might happen to the merits of the case, it doesn’t seem to bode well for the law’s fate on appeal if and when that happens.

Opinion:

United States Of America v. Arizona

FILED UNDER: Borders and Immigration, Law and the Courts, Quick Takes, US Politics
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. Deb Parks says:

    To: Judge Bolton, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, et al

    If the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act states that Congress encourages states to enforce federal immigration laws, why is SB 1070 such an issue?
    Better yet, why did President Obama, Posner, Pelosi, Holder, Crowley, ET all apologize to the world for it, saying it violates civil rights and then bring it up to China and Mexico of all places?

    OUR federal law states that state law enforcement should enforce immigration, and when a state takes added effort to do just that, our current administration thinks it is proper to criticize and apologize for it? Below you will find case law that supports the Arizona law is indeed constitutional and does not violate federal law. You put a stay on the requirement of police to check immigration status if “reasonable suspicion” warranted it and actually requiring aliens to carry their identification. Aliens are REQUIRED to carry this identification by federal law! How can you block a state’s right to enforce federal law? LEGAL citizens are asked for identification for ANY infraction of law. Why would an ILLEGAL alien not also be subject to the same? Our constitution guarantees the protection of this country against invasion. 20+ million aliens in our country IS an invasion.

    Amendment 14 – Citizenship Rights
    1. All persons BORN OR NATURALIZED IN the United States, AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of CITIZENS of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER II > Part VII > § 1304

    § 1304. Forms for registration and fingerprinting
    (e) Personal possession of registration or receipt card; penalties

    Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.

    Federal Immigration and Nationality Act
    Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii)

    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. The 1996 immigration control legislation passed by Congress was intended to encourage states and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws. Immigration officers and local law enforcement officers may detain an individual for a brief warrant-less interrogation where circumstances create a reasonable suspicion that the individual is illegally present in the U.S. Specific facts constituting a reasonable suspicion include evasive, nervous, or erratic behavior; dress or speech indicating foreign citizenship; and presence in an area known to contain a concentration of illegal aliens.

    8 U.S.C. §1252c. Section 1252c originated in the House of Representatives
    as a floor amendment to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
    (AEDPA §439).62 Section 1252c authorizes the arrest of aliens by state and local
    officers who have presumably violated §276 of the INA (Reentry of Removed Alien).
    Section 1252c(a) states in part:
    To the extent permitted by relevant State and local law, State and local
    law enforcement officials are authorized to arrest and detain an individual
    who —
    (1) is an alien illegally present in the United States; and
    (2) has previously been convicted of a felony in the United States and
    deported or left the United States after such conviction, but only after the
    State or local law enforcement officials obtain appropriate confirmation
    from the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the status of such
    individual and only for such period of time as may be required for the
    Service to take the individual into Federal custody for purposes of
    deporting or removing the alien from the United States.

    According to the CRS Report for Congress, March 11, 2004 , The purpose of §1252c was to overcome a perceived federal limitation on the ability of state and local officers to arrest an alien known by them to be dangerous because of past crimes committed in their jurisdiction.

    The Tenth Circuit’s most salient case on the preemption question is U.S. v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294 (10th Cir. 1999). In that case, an Oklahoma police officer arrested the defendant because he was an “illegal alien.”
    The Tenth Circuit’s conclusion was unequivocal: Section 1252c “does not limit or displace the preexisting general authority of state or local police officers to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws. Instead, Section 1252c merely creates an additional vehicle for the enforcement of federal immigration law.”
    As the Tenth Circuit noted, “in the months following the enactment of Section 1252c, Congress passed a series of provisions designed to encourage cooperation between the federal government and the states in the enforcement of federal immigration laws.” Id. at 1300 (citing 8 U.S.C. §§ 1103(a)(9), (c), 1357(g)). Put succinctly, the “legislative history does not contain the slightest indication that Congress intended to displace any preexisting enforcement powers already in the hands of state and local officers.”

    The court in United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, however, found that neither the defendant, the government, or the court could identify any pre-§1252c limitations on the powers of state and local officers to enforce federal law.64 Section 1252c(b) also mandates cooperation between the AG and the states to assure that information in the control of the AG, including information in the NCIC, that would assist state and local law enforcement
    officials in carrying out the duties of §1252c is made available to the states.

    In Gonzales v. City of Peoria, the Ninth Circuit opined in an immigration case that the “general rule is that local police are not precluded from enforcing federal statutes,” 722 F.2d 468, 474 (9th Cir. 1983).

    The Tenth Circuit has reviewed this question on several occasions, concluding squarely that a “state trooper has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations,” United States v. Salinas-Calderon, 728 F.2d 1298, 1301 n.3 (10th Cir. 1984). As the Tenth Circuit has described it, there is a “preexisting general authority of state or local police officers to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws,” United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294, 1295 (10th Cir. 1999). And again in 2001, the Tenth Circuit reiterated that “state and local police officers [have] implicit authority within their respective jurisdictions ‘to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws.’”

    United States v. Santana-Garcia, 264 F.3d 1188, 1194 (citing United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294, 1295). None of these Tenth Circuit holdings drew any distinction between criminal violations of the INA and civil provisions that render an alien deportable. Rather, the inherent arrest authority extends generally to both categories of federal immigration law violations.

    In 1996, Congress expressly put to rest any suspicion that it did not welcome state and local assistance in making immigration arrests. Congress added section 287(g) to the INA, providing for the establishment of written agreements with state law enforcement agencies to convey federal immigration enforcement functions to such agencies. In doing so, Congress reiterated its understanding that states and localities may make immigration arrests regardless of whether a 287(g) agreement exists. Congress stated that a formal agreement is not necessary for “any officer or employee of a State or political subdivision of a state… to communicate with the Attorney General regarding the immigration status of any individual, including reporting knowledge that a particular alien is not lawfully present in the United States,” or “otherwise to cooperate with the Attorney General in the identification, apprehension, detention, or removal of aliens not lawfully present in the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g)(10).

    Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468. 1983: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit:
    “Although the regulation of immigration is unquestionably an exclusive federal power, it is clear that this power does not preempt every state activity affecting aliens. De Canas, 424 U.S. at 354-55, 96 S.Ct. at 935-36. The plaintiffs’ reference to exclusive federal authority over immigration matters thus does not resolve this question. Instead, we must define precisely the challenged state enforcement activity to determine if “the nature of the regulated subject matter permits no other conclusion.

    “The City’s claim of authority is limited. It asserts only the power to enforce the criminal provisions of the federal immigration laws. There is nothing inherent in that specific enforcement activity that conflicts with federal regulatory interests. Federal and local enforcement have identical purposes–the prevention of the misdemeanor or felony of illegal entry. The subject matter of the regulation thus does not require us to find that state enforcement is preempted.”
    In the 1983 opinion of the Ninth Circuit in Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468 (9th Cir. 1983). In Gonzales, the Ninth Circuit held that local police officers have the authority to arrest an alien for a violation of the criminal provisions of the INA if such an arrest is authorized under state law.

    United States v. Salinas-Calderon, 728 F2nd 1298. 1984: United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

    Footnote 3 in the decision: “A state trooper has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations. Moreover, the trooper’s question about the green card was reasonable under the circumstances, and thus lawful.”

    United States v. Vasquez- Alvarez, 176 F.3rd 1294. 1999: United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit:
    “In particular, the United States observes this court has long held that state and local law enforcement officers are empowered to arrest for violations of federal law, as long as such arrest is authorized by state law. See Davida v. United States, 422 F.2d 528, 530 (10th Cir.1970); cf. United States v. Janik, 723 F.2d 537, 548 (7th Cir.1983) (“inferring, as a matter of state law] that Illinois officers have implicit authority to make federal arrests”); United States v. Swarovski, 557 F.2d 40, 43-49 (2d Cir.1977) (noting generally that there is no overarching federal impediment to arrests by state officers for violations of federal law). In fact, this court has held that state law-enforcement officers have the general authority to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal immigration laws.”

    United States v. Santana-Garcia, 264 F.3rd 1188. 2001: United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit:
    “We noted just recently that state law enforcement officers within the Tenth Circuit “have the general authority to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal immigration laws,” and that federal law as currently written does nothing “to displace . . . state or local authority to arrest individuals violating federal immigration laws.” United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294, 1296, 1299 n.4, 1300 (10th Cir. 1999). Rather, we observed that federal law “evinces a clear invitation from Congress for state and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws.” Id. at 1300.”

    United States v. Rodriguez-Arreola, 270 F.3rd 611. 2001: United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit:
    “During the routine stop of a vehicle for speeding, a South Dakota highway patrol officer discovered that Manuel Rodriguez-Arreola, a passenger in the vehicle, was an illegal alien. Rodriguez was detained and later charged under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) (Supp. IV 1998) with being an illegal alien present in the United States after deportation.2 Rodriguez filed a motion to suppress all evidence obtained during the traffic stop, arguing that his status as an illegal alien was discovered through questioning that violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The District Court granted Rodriguez’s motion to suppress and the government appeals. We reverse….

    “The government argues that Trooper Koltz did not violate the Fourth Amendment rights of Rodriguez. The government contends that the questions posed to Molina concerning his alienage were within the scope of the stop because they were based on a reasonable suspicion by Trooper Koltz.10 The government further contends that even if Trooper Koltz’s questions to Molina constituted an unconstitutional search and seizure, the questions only violated Molina’s Fourth Amendment rights–a violation that Rodriguez does not have standing to assert. After Molina stated that the passenger in his vehicle did not have a green card, the government argues that Trooper Koltz had reasonable suspicion to ask Rodriguez about his citizenship status. Finally, the government argues that even if Trooper Koltz’s questions constituted a Fourth Amendment violation, Rodriguez’s identity is not suppressible as a matter of law.” Rodriguez does not have Fourth Amendment rights to assert because he was an illegal alien.

    Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93. 2005 United States Supreme Court.

    This case I had to look in two places. First, the Ninth Circuit Silly Circus Court of Appeals. It indicated Mena was a legal resident. It didn’t state whether that was by green card, American born or otherwise, so I went to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision; here. This case involved a gang related drive by shooting.

    “Aware that the West Side Locos gang was composed primarily of illegal immigrants, the officers had notified the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) that they would be conducting the search, and an INS officer accompanied the officers executing the warrant. During their detention in the garage, an officer asked for each detainee’s name, date of birth, place of birth, and immigration status. The INS officer later asked the detainees for their immigration documentation. Mena’s status as a permanent resident was confirmed by her papers.”

    The court reversed the Ninth Circuit that Mena’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated. The court also held the officers had the right to question her citizenship status: “Mena’s detention was, under Summers, plainly permissible. [1]An officer’s authority to detain incident to a search is categorical; it does not depend on the “quantum of proof justifying detention or the extent of the intrusion to be imposed by the seizure.” Id., at 705, n. 19. Thus, Mena’s detention for the duration of the search was reasonable under Summers because a warrant existed to search 1363 Patricia Avenue and she was an occupant of that address at the time of the search.”

    United States v. Hernandez-Dominguez. 2005: United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit:
    “The determination of whether investigative detention beyond the scope of the initial stop is supported by an objectively reasonable suspicion of illegal activity “does not depend upon any one factor but on the totality of the circumstances.” Jones, 44 F.3d at 872 (citing United States v. Soto, 988 F.2d 1548, 1555 (10th Cir. 1993). We make this determination “with deference to a trained law enforcement officer’s ability to distinguish between innocent and suspicious circumstances.” United States v. Mendez, 118 F.3d 1426, 1431 (10th Cir. 1997). Here, while the officer was checking Mercado’s license and registration, Mercado revealed that he was an illegal alien. Further detention of Mercado was therefore justified, as was the questioning of Dominguez. See United States v. Salinas-Calderon, 728 F.2d 1298, 1301 n.3 (10th Cir. 1984) (stating that “[a] state trooper [who has executed a lawful stop] has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations”).”

    Manigault v. Springs, 199 U.S. 473, 480 (1905). Essentially, states may take any action (consistent with their own constitutions and laws) unless there exists a prohibition in the U.S. Constitution or such action has been preempted by federal law.

    We the People, object.
    We the People are demanding respect for our country.
    We the People, who ARE the law, are sick and tired of being put down and apologized for.
    We the People demand that the Arizona law SB 1070 be put into effect, without exemption of any requirements.
    We the People demand our borders be secured and that illegal aliens be deported.
    We the People stand behind Arizona and their attempt to maintain the safety of their state.
    We the People, demand our country back.
    We the People demand our voices be heard.

    Deb Parks
    LEGAL citizen, United States of America

    Ps: And just in case anyone starts to argue that “anchor baby” mothers have the right to be here, I will argue that as well.
    The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. Surprisingly, in Congress, all votes in favor of the 14th Amendment were from Republicans, and all votes against it were from Democrats. In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by writing:
    “Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”
    Enter US vs Wong Kim Ark
    The most important clarification, and the one that has been swept under the rug by the Supreme Court in US vs Wong Kim Ark (the most cited case in defense of illegal aliens) is “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”
    In citing US vs Wong Kim Ark, lawmakers wrongly assert that the Constitution allows for children born of illegal aliens on U.S. soil to be automatically considered a U.S. citizen (natural law). Wong’s parents were LEGAL non-citizen residents. In the ruling on Wong, Chief Justice Fuller, said, “the words ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ in the amendment, were used as synonymous with the words ‘and not subject to any foreign power.’” Lawmakers refuse to acknowledge this very important clarification of the ruling.
    What do these words mean? If the parents of a child born in the United States are subject to the country of their birth, the words of the Constitution quite clearly say they are not eligible to be considered a United States citizen. Illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of THEIR country, not the United States. They have pledged NO allegiance to the United States.
    In 1812, America went to war against Britain. One very important, and one very forgotten part of this war was the objection by our founding fathers to natural allegiance. Natural allegiance, quite simply, translates as the British common law that provides citizenship to any person born on Britain soil. If America fought against natural allegiance, why would modern-day legal and constitutional authorities purport the 14th Amendment‘s true meaning to embrace it? Virginia, during that time, adopted this doctrine written by Thomas Jefferson:
    “All infants, wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise, their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this Commonwealth until they relinquish that character, in manner as hereinafter expressed; and all others not being citizens of any, of the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.”
    These words show the true premise behind America’s first and only constitutional birthright declaration in the year 1866. All children born to parents who owed no foreign allegiance were to be citizens of the United States. This holds that not only must a child be born within the limits of the United States, but also be born with complete allegiance of the United States politically and not merely under its laws or borders.
    This was confirmed by the very same Congress who adopted the 14th Amendment under Section 1992 of the Revised Statutes: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”
    John Bingham, principle author of the Fourteenth Amendments’ first section, said of Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes:
    “Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents NOT owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”
    If this statute was meant to merely reaffirm the old “common law” rule of citizenship by birth then the condition of the parents would be entirely irrelevant.

    Sen. Lyman Trumbull reinforces this with his words:
    “It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws that we think of making citizens…”
    Not temporary, not without expecting to pledge allegiance to the country, not ILEGALLY.

    On July 18, 1868 Sen. Jacob Howard explained expatriation:
    “the emigration of the foreigner from his native land to some other land non animo revertendi; that is, with the intention of changing his domicile and making his permanent home in the country to which he emigrates.”
    Sen. Jacob Howard explained that expatriation could only be complete through law alone, and not through any act of the immigrant acting on his own outside of the law – and certainly not by any act of birth. This statement clearly reflects the intent that a person must, to gain citizenship, abide by written law. This does not provide an illegal alien any of the rights afforded to legal citizens.
    During the Naturalization Act of 1870 debates, California Representative Aaron Sargent said the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause was not a de-facto right for aliens to obtain citizenship. Not one person came forward to dispute this conclusion.
    What do the facts above show? That the original intent of the 14th Amendment was to provide citizenship to natural born citizens, of natural born citizens AND that such citizens hold true allegiance to the United States of America. An illegal alien holds no such allegiance which, in turn, would logically not provide for any child born of an illegal alien to claim citizenship merely by birth on American soil.
    Perhaps it is time for our Congress to revisit the words of our founding fathers carefully and without prejudice. Over the years, interpretations of the words of the 14th Amendment have become clouded with personal inflections and carefully crafted words that twist the true meaning of the words to reflect a very liberal view. Our Constitution was never meant to be a living document. It was crafted by our founding fathers to provide, for the LEGAL citizens of this country, certain rights and liberties.

  2. Southern Hoosier says:

    Deb Parks says: Monday, April 11, 2011 at 16:36
    To: Judge Bolton, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, et al

    Good job! There is a lot to think about in what you wrote. . Unlike a lot of us you really put a lot of effort in to it. If you don’t mind my asking, what type of background do you have?

  3. Deb Parks says:

    @ Southern Hoosier – I don’t have a law or political background or anything close.
    I’m simply a conservative patriot who is quite passionate about the atrocities that are occurring under the dem regime. It amazes me that our own courts seem not to know the law they profess to judge and that our lawmakers have no respect for our Constitution, the Founding Fathers and every other thing that makes the United States so exceptional.

  4. James V Feragola says:

    Good post Deb.

  5. Southern Hoosier says:

    Deb Parks says: Monday, April 11, 2011 at 17:06 It amazes me that our own courts seem not to know the law they profess to judge…..

    Is it ignorance of the law or do they want to impose their ideology, despite what the law says.

  6. Deb Parks says:

    Southern Hoosier says:
    Monday, April 11, 2011 at 17:15

    Is it ignorance of the law or do they want to impose their ideology, despite what the law says.

    Oh, without a doubt, they are imposing their ideology. More and more, the true basis of our law is thrown beside the way, while personal beliefs are used as rule of law.
    It is sickening and my hope is, that one day, the principles this country was founded on will rear their beautiful heads and once again, we will return to the course we hould never have strayed from.
    Liberty, freedom, small government, honesty.

  7. Deb Parks says:

    Thank you James.

  8. Brittanicus says:

    FIGHTING THE LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE COURTS WITH THE GROWING TEA PARTY CAUCUS.

    In 1986 the Simpson/ Mazzoli bill gave a mass amnesty to every illegal immigrant who settled in America. The need for Guest Workers is one of the most predominant issues allied with the invasion that has taken place in the last thirty years. The Guest Worker has never been obedient with the Dept of Labor regulations since it’s been inundated with fraud. Even after the volume amnesty signed into law by President Ronald Reagan, the opportunists in businesses used their influence to crush the immigration obligations assigned to them. In other words they kept on hiring foreign nationals that was in violation of the law;, the administrations have intentionally overlooked this major problem. The 1986 amnesty allowed the rough figure of 3.5 million, scatter to the four winds leaving the designated farms deserted and the workers joining the main stream work in the cities and communities.

    Even the original process was nothing more than a travesty of the “Rule of Law.” The numbers of the final immigration tally that was given amnesty was around 6 million, with illegal’s coming out of the woodwork brandishing bogus pre-dated utility bills and fraudulent documents accepted by the (INS) Immigration and Naturalization service; that has become (ICE) Immigration & Customs Service on September 11, 2001. All evidence that an foreigner was in the U.S. for a certain amount of time, or performed a certain number of days of field labor, was abridged to guarantee that all persons could qualify. INS offices were told to accept little more than scribbled copies of handwritten receipts and affidavits from so-called “people” (Not family members) who could attest that the applicant lived or worked for a certain amount of time somewhere in the US. Businesses and their lawyers have colluded with in killing any oversight of the majority of Guest Worker processes that have imported less capable, less skilled into America. Annually without public knowledge at least a million and a half semi-skilled workers (six stealth amnesties) come legally to America, which is a sell out to our own people.

    Document mills sprung up countrywide, offering receipts and affidavits to help demonstrate your eligibility for amnesty and eligibility for a green card; this was one of the biggest contradictions to our laws, which should never have happened, nor happen again. Farms and agriculture by law are supposed to provide for the Guest Worker and the family, but instead when sick or injured the burden falls as usual on the taxpayer. For the children of Guest Workers born in the United States they become instant citizens and the American taxpayer only has to read the Pdf file “Illegal Aliens and American Medicine.” http://tinyurl.com/o6r27

    Even more than Medicare for seniors, Medicaid has become a giant financial anvil around taxpayers’ necks that new citizen children of illegal parents use. Somewhere between 200.000 and 250.000 children of illegal alien parents receive citizenship annually. This is outside the fiscal nightmare of mandatory education that is cramming our classrooms of these children having no conception of English. The neglect of American students is happening nationwide, because teachers are forced to fritter more attention to their learning of non-citizen foreigners. The consequences of that are thousands more teachers must be hired, with means more taxes extracted from us all. This procedure is habitual of dumping illegal alien workers in the emergency rooms, that has become a uncontrollable expenditure, adding to the near 15 Trillion deficit and yet another burden on US taxpayers. We can alway use exceptionally talented workers, but what we don’t need is the push of other governments poor and desperate who end up in our welfare lines.

    Certainly not something the Liberal press will release to the public at large. Technology today has far surpassed the copy machines and document mills of the late 60’s. Any new immigration amnesty which includes Senator Harry Reid’s “Dream Act”, Comprehensive Immigration Reform, would be hard to control without state of the art innovations. The 20 million plus who are already illegally here would place America’s future in jeopardy, because of the Liberal Democrat agenda or Republicans ravenous need for cheap labor, crushing even more the legitimate lower income US job seeker. Hundreds of thousands of American less educated manual jobs have been displaced by illegal aliens. Not racial prejudice that Liberals cry out continuously, but a genuine need for jobs for Americans born here or legitimate permanent residents. For the two principle parties it’s about votes and profits.

    This is where the TEA PARTY of the American people step up to the dais, and no more Club Republican elite or Liberal Progressives using “Political Correctness” tripe to divert the laws of this country. No matter what the majority Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) says or Sen. Reid, the TEA PARTIES influence attributed to the lowering of the debt ceiling by 38 billion dollars. Not enough for sure, but better than nothing at all. Now the TEA PARTY will demand that a new mandated E-Verify becomes a main enforcement tool, followed closely by policing law 287 (g) and Secure Communities. E-Verify would used in audits to detect illegal workers, already working and those about to be hired. With extreme pressure on businesses that try to avoid the law, with chronic penalties of fines, business assets and licensing evoked and prison;

    The TEA PARTY is no longer a few loosely unorganized groups as tired, Sen. Harry Reid wheezes-out, but a giant mobilized machine of propagating power. Next to keep the Republican on its tracks is the budget of 2012, beginning with cutting government agencies, stopping the shadow Liberals overspending, not retreating from re-analyzing the unfair treaties of NAFTA and CAFTA for the American consumer and above all else, to enforce all requirement of National Security. Which means the–REAL–fence to protect America from people and drug smuggling? THIS IS THE PEOPLE’S WAR, THAT WE ALL MUST DEFEND AGAINST THE GREED, CORRUPTION IN WASHINGTON AND THE ROT THAT IS DESTROYING OUR COUNTRY FROM WITHIN. Illegal Immigration effects jobs of the lowest paid, taxes, our schools, health care and growing irreversible OVERPOPULATION.

    Immigration news: Rep. Ed Royce (R-Calif.) has introduced a bill that would increase border security and strengthen interior enforcement. The Keeping the Pledge on Immigration Act of 2011 (H.R.1274) requires the US Government to deploy national guard troops to the border and includes the CLEAR Act that requires cooperation between the federal government and state and local law agencies in the enforcement of immigration laws. Learn more from NUMBERSUSA. Start calling your federal and local politician to be found in the blue pages of your phone directory and demand they co-sponsor H.R.1274. Don’t let illegal aliens spend your taxes anymore?

    Immediate Red flag news: The 9th circuit court in the Sanctuary city of San Francisco that is hated appeals court by patriotic Americans, as its overrun by activist judges (Liberal Progressives) has blocked major sections of the strict Arizona illegal immigration law. Throw out all the pro-illegal immigrant politicians, Governors, Mayors, Police Chiefs and councilors and city managers in the streets.

    ATTN: Rising gas prices are not the main cause of this issue. Speculators are having a great deal to do with insidious problem. We can aid in stopping these incorrigible hikes, by cutting back usage; if not a priority DO NOT DRIVE! My relative in Los Angeles says he cannot afford the $4.11 cents at the pump, so he is joining a group of men driving to work and sharing the ride. He has joined “Netflix” for watching movies, instead of the outrageous price at the box office. He earns good money as a graphic artist, but says with a family of three, he needs to cut down on his driving habits.

    NO Copyright, ever! Distribute freely.

  9. tom p says:

    Gee… where was Deb and her chorus when Bush was “shredding the constitution”?

  10. tom p says:

    and Deb, no disrespect, but I was a hell of a lot more concerned about our Constitution when KSM was being drowned.

  11. Southern Hoosier says:

    tom p says: Monday, April 11, 2011 at 18:16
    Gee… where was Deb and her chorus when Bush was “shredding the constitution”?

    I know the drill, Bush stole the 2000 election and everything else after that is Bush’s fault.
    Other than that, what does Pres Bush have to do with Comrade Obama, the Great One and liberal judges trashing the Constitution?

  12. PD Shaw says:

    I need the cliff notes version.

  13. Scott says:
  14. Deb Parks says:

    Must it always be Bush’s fault? It’s so tiring
    No offense tom p, but this country was in a helluva lot better shape before 2007. It’s been in a downhill slide since.
    I, for one, am sick of the lawmakers showing total disregard for the Constitution and the rights of states.
    I’m old enough to decide for myself what is good for me, be it toilets, lightbulbs or what I put in my body for sustenance.
    Arrizona has every right to protect its borders AND enforce our federal immigration laws. Its truly sad that our current (alleged) president and his henchmen believe they are above the law and choose to actually sue a state for its efforts to protect its people from invasion, crime, et al
    That may fly in socialist countries, but we are a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. It doesn’t fly in the United States of America.

  15. Southern Hoosier says:

    PD Shaw says:Monday, April 11, 2011 at 18:54

    I need the cliff notes version.

    I feel the same way, it’s like reading a lecture by a law professor.

  16. Southern Hoosier says:

    Off topic

    It’s a good thing that Truman was a Democrat. If Truman had been a Republican, we would still be hearing how he stole the election from Dewy

  17. Deb Parks says:

    Cliff notes 🙂
    Federal Immigration and Nationality Act
    Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii)

    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
    In Gonzales v. City of Peoria, the Ninth Circuit opined in an immigration case that the “general rule is that local police are not precluded from enforcing federal statutes,”
    is U.S. v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294 (10th Cir. 1999). In that case, an Oklahoma police officer arrested the defendant because he was an “illegal alien.”
    The Tenth Circuit’s conclusion was unequivocal: Section 1252c “does not limit or displace the preexisting general authority of state or local police officers to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws. Instead, Section 1252c merely creates an additional vehicle for the enforcement of federal immigration law.”
    United States v. Santana-Garcia, 264 F.3rd 1188. 2001: United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit:
    “We noted just recently that state law enforcement officers within the Tenth Circuit “have the general authority to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal immigration laws,” and that federal law as currently written does nothing “to displace . . . state or local authority to arrest individuals violating federal immigration laws.”

  18. Deb Parks says:

    Southern Hoosier says:
    Monday, April 11, 2011 at 19:05
    Off topic

    It’s a good thing that Truman was a Democrat. If Truman had been a Republican, we would still be hearing how he stole the election from Dewy

    Lmaooooooooooooooooooooo

  19. Chad S says:

    If you don’t like/agree with federal policies, thats why you have 2 Senators and a proportional number of congressmen.

  20. wr says:

    Deb Parks — Sorry, but you are not “the people.” You are a person. You are entitled to your opinion. You can spend your entire life whining about how the country isn’t the way you want it to be, with old people dying in poverty and only the super-rich being able to afford health care. And that’s great.

    What you don’t get to do is claim to be the voice of the people of the United States. You’re not. And there are plenty of us who believe that what you stand for violates everything that makes this country great.

    You want to live in an Ayn Rand paradise? Elect your representatives and let them fight it out with mine. But you don’t get to claim you speak for all Americans. You don’t.

  21. Deb Parks says:

    wr – I “am” We the People, and I have the inherent right to express my freedom of speech..unless you and yours would like to try and take that away too?

  22. Tlaloc says:

    You know what never fails to convince people of your argument? Long, rambling, insane, cut and paste jobs. Man, I wish we had some of those here.

  23. Southern Hoosier says:

    (CNSNews.com) – Texas Sheriff Tomas Herrera said he does not agree with Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s assessment of security at the U.S.-Mexico border as being “better than it has ever been.”

    Herrera, in a telephone interview with CNSNews.com, said that not “a mile” of the 85-mile stretch of border in Maverick County, Texas, which is separated from Mexico by the Rio Grande River, is secure and that the violence of Mexican drug cartels is spilling over into the United States as cartels come into Texas and kidnap teenagers for their smuggling operations.

    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/not-mile-border-secure-texas-sheriff-say#
    Thank you Comrade Obama, the Great One, for keeping our borders secure and keeping us safe.

  24. anjin-san says:

    but this country was in a helluva lot better shape before 2007. It’s been in a downhill slide since.

    Yea, the part you left out where the economy imploded under Bush kinda screwed things up, no? Course he spent many years setting the table…

    wr – I “am” We the People

    No, you are you the person. Afraid you are not smart enough to speak for me.

  25. anjin-san says:

    SH,

    Why don’t you lead us to some of those headless corpses of Americans which are supposedly more plentiful than tumbleweed down there in the desert? While you are at it, perhaps you could point out a single hour in history when our borders have been “secure”.

  26. anjin-san says:

    I have the inherent right to express my freedom of speech..unless you and yours would like to try and take that away too?

    Of course you do. What you do not have the right to do is presume to speak for others, and that you get indignant and resort to a bogus claim of an attack on your rights when called on that presumption says a lot about you.

  27. Southern Hoosier says:

    anjin-san says: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 at 00:03
    SH,

    Why don’t you lead us to some of those headless corpses of Americans which are supposedly more plentiful than tumbleweed down there in the desert? While you are at it, perhaps you could point out a single hour in history when our borders have been “secure”.

    Which desert is that? Secure is a relative term. I can point to a time in history when the border is least secure, which is now.