Why Russell Pearce wrote Arizona's common sense illegal immigration law

Ethel C. Fenig
Not that it will matter to--or be understood by--the closed minded progressives, but Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce (R) clearly spells out in Front Page Magazine exactly why he authored Arizona's SB1070, otherwise known as the law dealing with illegal immigrants.

I saw the enormous fiscal and social costs that illegal immigration was imposing on my state. I saw Americans out of work, hospitals and schools overflowed, and budgets strained. Most disturbingly, I saw my fellow citizens victimized by illegal alien criminals. (snip) When do we stand up for Americans and the rule of law? If not now, when? We are a nation of laws, a Constitutional Republic.

And being a Constitutional Republic the law does not violate the constitutional rights of illegals but rather enhances the rights of legal residents as Pearce carefully explains to those "hysterical critics" who don't take the time to know what it's about. (Yes, Eric Holder, yes Rep Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), yes, Highland Park HS administrators and others, he's talking to you.)


SB1070 simply codifies federal law into state law and removes excuses and concerns about states' inherent authority to enforce these laws and removes all illegal "sanctuary" policies.
Got that--the bill codifies federal law in Arizona!

Now here is what it does not do.

The law does not allow police to stop suspected illegal aliens unless they have already come across them through normal "lawful conduct" such as a traffic stop, and explicitly prohibits racial profiling. Illegal is not a race, it is a crime.

(snip)

Arizona did not make illegal, illegal. It is a crime to enter or remain in the U.S. in violation of federal law. States have had inherent authority to enforce immigration laws when the federal government has failed or refused to do so.

For all those foaming mouths whining that Arizona's law is illegal, Pearce pointedly remarks

For all their newfound respect for the authority of federal immigration law, the open borders advocates who oppose SB 1070 have no problems with "sanctuary cities" across the country that explicitly obstruct federal immigration authorities to protect illegal aliens, even though are illegal under federal law (8 USC 1644 & 1373.) (snip) politicians like (San Francisco mayor) Gavin Newsom and Phoenix Mayor Gordon put the interests of illegal aliens before the safety of American citizens.

What about federal law against illegals? Yes, what about it?

In criticizing the SB 1070, Barack Obama said, "Our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others." There is nothing irresponsible about enforcing our law, but President Obama is right in that this is only necessary because the federal government does not do its job.

(snip)

The federal government simply needs to enforce its immigration laws by cracking down on employers of illegal aliens, securing our borders, and deporting illegal alien criminals.

If the measure requires Arizona to "enforce its immigrations laws"so other states will follow  then, Pearce believes

Arizona will be a model for states across the nation and the federal government, it will end illegal immigration to America, but President Obama is looking towards San Francisco instead.

While Obama is looking towards San Francisco for guidance, apparently 73% of this country are looking towards Arizona as a model according to a Pew Research poll.

Fully 73% say they approve of requiring people to produce documents verifying their legal status if police ask for them. Two-thirds (67%) approve of allowing police to detain anyone who cannot verify their legal status, while 62% approve of allowing police to question people they think may be in the country illegally.

There are, as expected, differences in support for Arizona's law between Democrats and Republicans, young and old. 45% of Democrats agree with the law while 46% don't; however 65% of Democrats agree people should have the proper documents proving legal status; 55% agree the police should be able to hold anyone unable to prove such status.

Republicans and independents have no problem with the law and all its elements.

 

Fewer than half (45%) of those younger than 30 approve of the new law while 47% disapprove. Majorities of older age groups - including 74% of those 65 and older - approve of the law.

However, even most young people approve of requiring people to produce documents verifying their legal status; 61% approve of this element of the law while 35% disapprove. Larger percentages of older age groups support this provision.

Is Obama talking to himself?

Just 25% approve of the way Obama is handling the issue, while more than twice as many (54%) disapprove. That is little changed from last month (29% approve) and down slightly from last November (31%).

No Obama isn't talking to himself, he's talking to other closed minded progressives, liberals, lefties, whatever. The other 75% of the nation disagrees with them.


Not that it will matter to--or be understood by--the closed minded progressives, but Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce (R) clearly spells out in Front Page Magazine exactly why he authored Arizona's SB1070, otherwise known as the law dealing with illegal immigrants.

I saw the enormous fiscal and social costs that illegal immigration was imposing on my state. I saw Americans out of work, hospitals and schools overflowed, and budgets strained. Most disturbingly, I saw my fellow citizens victimized by illegal alien criminals. (snip) When do we stand up for Americans and the rule of law? If not now, when? We are a nation of laws, a Constitutional Republic.

And being a Constitutional Republic the law does not violate the constitutional rights of illegals but rather enhances the rights of legal residents as Pearce carefully explains to those "hysterical critics" who don't take the time to know what it's about. (Yes, Eric Holder, yes Rep Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), yes, Highland Park HS administrators and others, he's talking to you.)


SB1070 simply codifies federal law into state law and removes excuses and concerns about states' inherent authority to enforce these laws and removes all illegal "sanctuary" policies.

Got that--the bill codifies federal law in Arizona!

Now here is what it does not do.

The law does not allow police to stop suspected illegal aliens unless they have already come across them through normal "lawful conduct" such as a traffic stop, and explicitly prohibits racial profiling. Illegal is not a race, it is a crime.

(snip)

Arizona did not make illegal, illegal. It is a crime to enter or remain in the U.S. in violation of federal law. States have had inherent authority to enforce immigration laws when the federal government has failed or refused to do so.

For all those foaming mouths whining that Arizona's law is illegal, Pearce pointedly remarks

For all their newfound respect for the authority of federal immigration law, the open borders advocates who oppose SB 1070 have no problems with "sanctuary cities" across the country that explicitly obstruct federal immigration authorities to protect illegal aliens, even though are illegal under federal law (8 USC 1644 & 1373.) (snip) politicians like (San Francisco mayor) Gavin Newsom and Phoenix Mayor Gordon put the interests of illegal aliens before the safety of American citizens.

What about federal law against illegals? Yes, what about it?

In criticizing the SB 1070, Barack Obama said, "Our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others." There is nothing irresponsible about enforcing our law, but President Obama is right in that this is only necessary because the federal government does not do its job.

(snip)

The federal government simply needs to enforce its immigration laws by cracking down on employers of illegal aliens, securing our borders, and deporting illegal alien criminals.

If the measure requires Arizona to "enforce its immigrations laws"so other states will follow  then, Pearce believes

Arizona will be a model for states across the nation and the federal government, it will end illegal immigration to America, but President Obama is looking towards San Francisco instead.

While Obama is looking towards San Francisco for guidance, apparently 73% of this country are looking towards Arizona as a model according to a Pew Research poll.

Fully 73% say they approve of requiring people to produce documents verifying their legal status if police ask for them. Two-thirds (67%) approve of allowing police to detain anyone who cannot verify their legal status, while 62% approve of allowing police to question people they think may be in the country illegally.

There are, as expected, differences in support for Arizona's law between Democrats and Republicans, young and old. 45% of Democrats agree with the law while 46% don't; however 65% of Democrats agree people should have the proper documents proving legal status; 55% agree the police should be able to hold anyone unable to prove such status.

Republicans and independents have no problem with the law and all its elements.

 

Fewer than half (45%) of those younger than 30 approve of the new law while 47% disapprove. Majorities of older age groups - including 74% of those 65 and older - approve of the law.

However, even most young people approve of requiring people to produce documents verifying their legal status; 61% approve of this element of the law while 35% disapprove. Larger percentages of older age groups support this provision.

Is Obama talking to himself?

Just 25% approve of the way Obama is handling the issue, while more than twice as many (54%) disapprove. That is little changed from last month (29% approve) and down slightly from last November (31%).

No Obama isn't talking to himself, he's talking to other closed minded progressives, liberals, lefties, whatever. The other 75% of the nation disagrees with them.