Some concerns have been raised about SB1070 that are not valid. Let me explain. It does not allow for federal or local government or law enforcement to pull up to a corner and ask for papers. Law enforcement must have lawful contact and then only then after an officer has reasonable suspicion they may ask and in fact should ask. No more handcuffing our officers and restricting them from asking when they believe you are in violation of our immigration laws, just like any other crime. This bill "prohibits" racial profiling. This bill requires lawful contact and then an officer must have reasonable suspicion. This bill does "NOT" give the feds any authority at all. I have two legal opinions making that clear. It amazes me that some can still argue such silly things after reading the bill. And on the racial profiling issue, it is already illegal under Arizona Contitution and the U.S. Constitution, and how demeaning to law enforcement to think that they cannot be trusted to ask questions about one’s immigration status, yet we put guns on them and expect them to make life and death decisions.

One is always very disappointed one any abuses power, but we have checks and balances in the syetem to investigate all complaints.

I am a states rights guy and am rated every year by the Goldwater Institute as the top legislator in defense of your liberty and limited government.

I sponsored the legislation to keep Arizona out of the Real ID Act and to prevent Arizona from participation in any National ID program, period. It is current law. STATES HAVE INHERENT AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE IMMIGRATION LAW:

Sanctuary policies are illegal. Local, state, or federal government agencies that sanction or retaliate against employees or officials who report immigration law violations to ICE or the Border Patrol can be sued by the whistleblower under 8 U.S.C. 1373 or 8 U.S.C. 1644 for damages and costs.

"All officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws shall have authority to make arrests for a violation of any provision of this section" (affirmed US v Perez-Gonzalez 2002 Fed App 0360, 6th Circ.).

Congress has firmly established that there is a significant public interest in the effective enforcement of immigration law. Congress could have chosen to limit local enforcement pursuant to its plenary power over immigration, but it has not done so. In the absence of a limitation on local enforcement powers, the states are bound by the Supremacy Clause of the United ‘States Constitution to enforce violations of the federal immigration laws. "The statutory law of the United States is part of the law of each state just as if it were written into state statutory law." States do not need a 287g, IGA, MOU or a permission slip to arrest illegal aliens. The 287g goes beyound the arrest powers as states already have inherent authority to make arrests, 287g is for post arrest, not anything to do with authority!!!!

In Sections 1324 the language that referred to officers "of the United States" when talking about authority to arrest was stricken from section 1324 by amendment. In People v. Baraja, a California court concluded, "that change can only mean that the scope of the arrest power under section 1324 was enlarged; in no way can it mean that the scope of arrest under the other two sections was restricted. Such an acute non sequitur would attribute to the Congress both serious inconsistency and profound lack of logic."

In 1999 a decision in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the independent authority of local police departments to enforce federal immigration law, as long as state law prescribing police power of arrest authorized such an arrest. The U.S. Dept. of Justice endorsed this doctrine in April 2002. Under Attorney General Ashcroft, the U.S. Dept. of Justice took the position that state and local police have inherent authority to enforce civil immigration laws.

The inherent arrest authority of states arises from their pre-constitutional status as sovereign entities. The powers retained by the states at the time of ratification proceeded "not from the people of the United States, but from the people of the several states," and remain unchanged, except as they have been "abridged" by the Constitution. The authority of a state to arrest for violations of federal law is thus not delegated; but "inheres in the ability of one sovereign to accommodate the interests of another sovereign." This federalism-based analysis has a strong judicial pedigree.

The courts also ruled (Miller v. U.S., 357 U.S. 301, 305(1958) that a warrant less arrest "of an arrest for violation of federal law by state peace officers, …the lawfulness of the arrest without warrant is to be determined by reference to state law."

Citizens have a constitutional right to expect the protection of federal laws which prohibit unauthorized activities by non-citizens are denied equal protection when a police department or magistrate acts in a manner that encourages or assists persons selected on the basis of nationality or alienage to engage in such unlawful activities.

Illegal aliens are not a suspect class entitled to Fourteenth Amendment based strict scrutiny of any discriminatory classification based on that status, nor are they defined by an immutable characteristic, since their status is the product of conscious unlawful action.

SB1070 is the most comprehensive enforcement bill in the nation, it will remove all "illegal" sanctuary policies that exist in many of our cities, and it will allow law enforcement to enforce our immigration laws as intended. I guarantee this will save American jobs, reduce the cost of government, improve neighborhood safety, improve congestion, move toward smaller classrooms, shorter lines in emergency rooms, reduce rapes and molestations and reduce the number of deaths and maimings of our citizens and more.

Please note that Phoenix has had a more than 50% reduction in homicides this year over last, after we passed employer sanctions and other illegal alien legislation, and our illegal alien population has decreased by twice the national average in the past two years. SB1070 will add a "trespass" provision to law enforcement giving them the ability to hold an illegal alien under state law if need be or to just call ICE and turn them over to ICE. This provision will allow our law enforcement folks to complete investigations on a suspect and not allow them to be deported before the investigation can be completed. It also goes after illegal employers and illegal aliens soliciting work and provides for law enforcement to more easily enforce public safety issues on busy streets.

I have asked for additional legal opinions and have been assured by several competent independent Constitutional attorneys, legislative council attorneys and the Maricopa County Attorney's Office that my interpretation is correct. However, I want to be very clear and will add language to eliminate those concerns as best as I can.

We have already passed legislation to prohibit the State of Arizona from participation in any kind of National ID or Real ID Act. It is the law today and will remain the law. This bill did not and does not change that. Having said that, I put language in the bill that enhances the clarity on these issues of concern and make it very clear that nothing in this bill will allow Arizona to be a part of any national ID program. I have had Legislative
Council and the Maricopa County Attorney's Office examine this legislation and both have assured me it does allow for any kind of National ID or expand ID requirements in any way.


Under federal law, emergency responders and emergency rooms are exempt under EMTALA, a federal law requiring us to transport and treat everyone including illegal aliens, in case of emergencies. I made some minor changes to the first responders so that those good Samaritans transporting illegal aliens (little old ladies taking someone to church) are not in jeopardy in any way. They are not now under this bill, because they must be committing an additional criminal offense to the state law and in the furtherance of an illegal alien remaining in the U.S. to be so charged, but I will make it even clearer in the new language.




ARIZONA LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

MEMO (legal opinion)

A.R.S. section 11-1051, subsections B through E essentially empowers state agencies and employees with law enforcement authority to determine the status of illegal aliens, transfer aliens already determined to exist in the United States illegally to federal custody and arrest anyone believed to have engaged in an offense warranting legal removal from the United States. The bill section does not grant authority, either explicitly or implicitly, to detain a person indefinitely.

A.R.S. section 11-1051 states well established legal concept in the context of immigration enforcement; however, there are a few points worth noting. Subsection B allows a law enforcement entity, where reasonable suspicion exists, to presumably detain a suspected illegal alien for the purpose of determining immigration status. This is simply a restatement of the federal law already in place. See Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979); see also Ramirez v. Webb, 719 F.Supp. 610, 616 (W.D. Mich. 1989) (holding that law enforcement authorities "may detain an individual for a brief period of interrogation here the circumstances create a reasonable suspicion that the individual is engaged in illegal activity. In this case, the relevant illegal activity is that the individual is illegally present in this country."). There is nothing in this subsection that would permit a law enforcement entity to go beyond this allowance and indefinitely detain someone.

Subsection E provides that a law enforcement officer "may arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States." Again, as with subsection B, this is simply a restatement of the established constitutional protections and does not go so far as to permit indefinite detention. See Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318, 354 (2001) (holding that "[i]f an officer has probable cause to believe that an individual has committed even a very minor criminal offense in his presence, he may, without violating the Fourth Amendment, arrest the offender.").

Subsection C requires the immediate transfer of an illegal alien to federal custody once state sanctions expire. Subsection D allows a law enforcement agency to transport an illegal alien in the agency's custody to a federal facility at other points in the process.

Neither subsection authorizes indefinite detention.

The other issue presented in this memorandum focuses on whether A.R.S. section 11-1051 functionally implements the REAL ID Act of 2005 ("RIDA"). The bill would not implement RIDA. RIDA states that "a Federal agency may not accept, for any official purpose, a driver's license or identification card issued by a State to any person unless the State is meeting the requirements of this section." Further, RIDA states that the Secretary of Homeland Security "may make grants to a State to assist the State in conforming to the minimum standards set forth in this title." Other than allowing the Secretary to make grants to assist states in conforming to the minimum standards, it is an all or nothing policy: a state either conforms or it is in violation of the Act.

The fact that A.R.S. section 11-1051 allows for the sending, receiving, maintaining or exchanging of immigration status information with any federal, state or local agency does not in any way invoke the application of RIDA in Arizona. Arizona, If a law enforcement entity did detain a person indefinitely, it would violate federal and constitutional law. There is nothing in A.R.S. section 11-1051 that attempts to override these federally mandated procedural protections.

Pursuant to federal and state law currently in place, could easy exchange information with any federal entity and maintain its "sovereignty" with regard to RIDA.

Finally, A.R.S. section 11-1051 narrowly restricts when a public agent can access status related information. Subsection F states four limiting "official purposes." If a public agent or bureaucrat cannot demonstrate that he accessed a person's information pursuant to subsections F's official purposes, that agent would not find asylum in section 11-1051. This subsection is apparently causing some people confusion, because they are reading the paragraphs as a new requirement for governmental entities to seek information. SB 1070 does not create new mandates to seek information. These paragraphs must be read with the whole subsection. They limit the purposes for which immigration status information may be exchanged.

CONCLUSIONS

A.R.S. section 11-1051 does not allow for the indefinite detention of an individual. A.R.S. section 11-1051 is not a de facto implementation of the REAL ID Act of 2005. A.R.S. section 11-1051 limits access to information to four narrowly constructed official purposes.

I am State Senator Russell Pearce the author of SB1070.

We must stay vigilant in the defense of our Constitutional liberties, freedom and the rule of law.

  • 2010: SB1070 ... I was the author of "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhood Act" Removes all Sanctuary Policies in Arizona and allows law enforcement to enforce our laws. "We are a nation of laws. We must have the courage - the fortitude - to enforce, with compassion but without apology, those laws that protect the integrity of our borders and the rights of our lawful citizens." - Senator Russell Pearce
  • 2010: SB1108 ... Arizona's Freedom to Carry Act: The strongest 2nd Amendment legislation in the nation allowing lawful citizens their Constitutional right to carry open or concealed. Still allows for a CCW as it has benefit to many i.e. for restaurant carry or reciprocity with other states
  • Helped create a statewide task force GIITEM (Gang and Immigration Task Force), 250 officers, going after human smugglers, drug smugglers, drop houses, and criminal aliens in addition to enforcing all of our immigration laws
  • 1996 wrote legislation to stop Driver License from being issued until one could prove legal presence in the U.S.
  • 2004: Proposition 200, in ’04; I wrote The Citizen’s Initiative known as Protect Arizona NOW (Arizona's Citizens and Taxpayers Protection Act), to require:

1. Proof of citizenship to register to vote. The only state in the Union to require proof of citizenship to register to vote. Requires states to strengthen the integrity of their voter rolls

2. Photo I.D. When voting. One needs ID to rent a block buster movie, you should have one to vote

3. Proof of eligibility to receive non-federal mandated public benefits. Requires everyone to provide proof of eligibility equally. Such costs vary in the tens of millions of dollars

  • In ’06 I Authored Proposition 100, a Constitutional Amendment to refuse bond to any illegal alien who commits a serious crime in Arizona (passed by 78%)
  • In ’06 I Authored Proposition 102 to require that any illegal alien who sues an American Citizen cannot receive ANY punitive damages (passed by 75%)
  • In ’06 I Authored Prop. 103 making English the Official Language of Arizona (passed by 72%)
  • 2007: I Authored: Arizona’s Fair and Legal Employment Act; Arizona’s Employer Sanctions legislation, the toughest worksite enforcement bill in the nation to stop illegal employers and to protect jobs for legal citizens of Arizona

Why do our elected leaders so easily relinquish liberty and have such little respect for the Constitution and the law?

Arizona is ground zero for stopping this “illegal” invasion. Yes they are illegal and they are invading this nation. Illegal is not a race, it is a crime. The media would have you believe I made “illegal, illegal”. Arizona did not make illegal, illegal, illegal was already illegal. It is a crime to enter or remain in the U.S. in violation of federal law 8USC 1324 and 1325. States have inherent authority to enforce immigration laws and yet has failed or refused to do so. Sanctuary policies are illegal under federal law (8 USC 1644 & 1373) yet we have them all over the United States.

SB1070 simply codifies federal law into state law and removes excuses and concerns about states inherent authority to enforce these laws and removes all so called “sanctuary” policies.

I for one refuse to apologize for standing up for America and the rule of law.

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.

Well here in Arizona we are going to enforce our laws, protect our citizens and stand firmly behind the rule of law.

DID YOU KNOW: Had law enforcement enforced our immigration laws and, we would have averted 9/11. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 underscored for all Americans the link between immigration law enforcement and Terrorism. 4 of the 5 leaders of the 9-11 attack were in violation of our immigration laws and had contact with law enforcement but were not arrested.

Nineteen alien terrorists had been able violate our immigration laws, overstay their visas or violate their Immigration statuses with impunity, and move freely within the Country without significant interference from federal or local law Enforcement. The abuse of U.S. Immigration laws was Instrumental in the deaths of nearly 3,000 people.

How long do we ignore the damage to America, in murders, maimings, kidnappings, car jackings, gangs, Identity theft, $2.7 billion annually here in Arizona just to Educate, Medicate and Incarcerate illegal aliens. And what about the 17 to 30 million Americans out of work … and we still allow employers to higher “illegal” workers.

THIS IS THE TRUE COST OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

Here is the true cost of illegal immigration, the death and maiming of police officers and citizens in Arizona by illegal aliens

1. Rob Krentz a Rancher on the Arizona border (murdered)

2. Phoenix Officer Shane Figueroa (killed)

3. Phoenix Officer Nick Erfle (Murdered)

4. Phoenix Office Glidewell (shot in chest)

5. Phoenix Officer Marc Atkinson (murdered)

6. Phoenix Police Officer Ignacio Conchos and his partner, Officer John Davis

7. Phoenix Police Officer Ken Collins was murdered

8. Officers Jim Kliewer and Officer Jerry Kilgore were gunned down

9. Police Officer Brian Wilbur was seriously injured

10. ·

11. Officers Jim Kliewer and Officer Jerry Kilgore were gunned down

12. Phoenix Police Officer Brian Wilbur was seriously injured

13. Phoenix Police Officer Mark Atkinson was

14. Phoenix Police Officer Jason Schecterle was severely burned

15. Phoenix Police Officer Robert Sitek was shot and seriously injured

16. Child serial rapist in Chandler

17. 15 year old raped in Scottsdale by school janitor

18. 15 year old kidnapped and raped in Guadalupe

19. Kris Eggle-park ranger in southern Arizona (murdered)

20. Border Patrol Agent James Epling (murdered)

21. Deputy Sean Pearce (shot by homicide suspects)

22. Deputy Lew Argetsinger (shot by homicide suspects)

23. Sgt. Manuel H. Tapia was shot by a drug suspect

24. DPS Officer Robert K. Martin, 57, was shot to death – his assailant, Ernesto Salgado Martinez, a 19-year-old ex-convict

25. Agent Richard Fass, 37, of the United States Drug Enforcement Agency, murdered

26. Agent Alexander Kirpnick, 27, Border Patrol, murdered

27. Gilbert mother killed by illegal alien fleeing from police in Mesa

28. Jason, decorated Iraq war veteran stabbed in his own front yard by illegal alien

29. Mother "legal immigrant" killed by illegal alien trying to ram Sheriff's Deputy's car in Phoenix

30. Tracy "17 year old" killed by drunk illegal alien

The burden of blind-eye police department policies forced upon them by local politicians and police chiefs and open-border philosophies were paid for with the lives of not only our police officers throughout our state, but also our citizens; it could happen to you. THIS IS THE HIGH COST OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.

LET ME SEE IF I GOT THIS RIGHT:

IF YOU CROSS THE NORTH KOREAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET 12 YEARS HARD LABOR.

IF YOU CROSS THE IRANIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU ARE DETAINED INDEFINITELY .

IF YOU CROSS THE AFGHAN BORDER ILLEGALLY, YOU GET SHOT.

IF YOU CROSS THE SAUDI ARABIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE JAILED.

IF YOU CROSS THE CHINESE BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU MAY NEVER BE HEARD FROM AGAIN.

IF YOU CROSS THE VENEZUELAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE BRANDED A SPY AND YOUR FATE WILL BE SEALED.

IF YOU CROSS THE CUBAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE THROWN INTO POLITICAL PRISON TO ROT.

IF YOU CROSS THE U.S. BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET:

* AND, IN MANY INSTANCES, YOU CAN VOTE.
*

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I HAD A FIRM GRASP ON THE SITUATION

PLEASE KEEP THIS GOING ....FORWARD TO ALL OF YOUR FRIENDS & FAMILY

IT'S TIME TO WAKE UP AMERICA !!!!!!!!!!!!

* A JOB,
* A DRIVERS LICENSE,
* SOCIAL SECURITY CARD,
* WELFARE,
* FOOD STAMPS,
* CREDIT CARDS,
* SUBSIDIZED RENT OR A LOAN TO BUY A HOUSE,
* FREE EDUCATION,
* FREE HEALTH CARE,
* A LOBBYIST IN WASHINGTON
* BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS PRINTED IN YOUR LANGUAGE
* THE RIGHT TO CARRY YOUR COUNTRYS FLAG WHILE YOU PROTEST THAT YOU DONT GET ENOUGH RESPECT

Just in Phoenix:

· On Thursday July 1, 1982, Phoenix Police Officer Ignacio Conchos and his partner, Officer John Davis, entered a Phoenix bar in search of a bank robbery suspect. Both officers were mortally wounded when the suspect began shooting inside the bar. Officer Conchos died a short time later. Officer Davis died one month later on Friday August 6, 1982. Efran Contreras Lopez was a multiple crosser.

· On Friday May 27, 1988 Phoenix Police Officer Ken Collins was murdered by an illegal alien carrying out a bank robbery. Rudolfo Romero, one of the killers, remained at large for 12 years in Mexico and was extradited under the assurance that the death penalty would not be pursued.

· On Monday September 15, 1997 Officers Jim Kliewer and Officer Jerry Kilgore were gunned down by an illegal alien who had violated the terms of his probation – the illegal alien had shot his ex-girlfriend’s new boyfriend. Officer Kliewer was shot in the neck; Officer Kilgore was shot in the head. It should be noted, the first stipulation for a person on probation in the state of Arizona is to be a law abiding citizen. For a judge to place an illegal alien on probation is to create an automatic violation – illegal means “not law abiding” and alien means “not a citizen.”

· On Sunday December 21, 1997 Phoenix Police Officer Brian Wilbur was seriously injured when he was struck by a car driven by an intoxicated illegal alien.

· On Friday March 26, 1999 Phoenix Police Officer Mark Atkinson was murdered in an ambush by illegal aliens.

· On Monday March 26, 2001 Phoenix Police Officer Jason Schecterle was severely burned when an illegal alien driving a taxi cab collided into the rear of his police car.

· On Saturday April 12, 2003 Phoenix Police Officer Robert Sitek was shot and seriously injured by an illegal alien involved in an armed car-j******. The illegal alien was a multiple crosser.

· On Tuesday September 18, 2007 Phoenix Police Officer Nick Erfle was murdered by an illegal alien during contact reference a civil traffic infraction.

· On Sunday October 16, 2007 Phoenix Police Officer Brett Glidewell was shot in the chest by an armed illegal alien who had been stopped for a civil traffic violation.

o Jose Abel Cabrera-Somosa, who was prosecuted by Andrew Thomas of the Maricopa County Attorney’s office and sentenced to 36 years on March 27, 2009, claimed to the court that his conviction was based upon mistaken identity, that his 6 year presence in the country wasn’t a crime, that he had been stopped by police 4 times prior to the shooting of Glidewell, and that the entire case against him was motivated out of racism.

· On Saturday October 25, 2008 Phoenix Police Officer Shane Figueroa was killed by an illegal alien who was driving a vehicle while intoxicated. This illegal alien was a multiple crosser with outstanding arrest warrants.

o Shane’s death was described by Chief Harris as a “tragic accident involving an undocumented worker.” In reality, Shane was needlessly killed by a multiple crosser with outstanding warrants who, according to investigators, urinated on the side of the road while Shane’s life ebbed away on the street. Police officers on the front line are committed to the rule of law and are quite black and white when it comes to the rules of engagement. Police officers don’t call a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist.” They don’t call a bank robber an “aggressive borrower with bad credit.” A softened tone for those committing the crime of illegal immigration (8 U.S.C 1325 (a)) can be highly offensive to those sworn to uphold the law.

At least 6 officers killed and 6 seriously injured by illegal aliens.

Also, DPS officer Martin,

While we are at it, how about the billions in cost to educate, medicate and incarcerate illegal aliens? Not to mention the crime victims of Murders, maimings, home invasions, kidnappings, identity theft, drugs, gangs and the list goes on.

If law enforcement could not stop someone before this law, they cannot stop them now. If you did not have to carry ID before this law, you don't have to carry ID under this new law. We did not expand law enforcement authority or require any "new" requirements or put new conditions on citizens. We simply took the handcuffs off from law enforcement and allow them to enforce our immigration laws, like any other law. Under SB1070 they will be able to ask and to act.

• The new Arizona law mirrors federal law, which already requires aliens (non-citizens) to register and carry their documents with them (8 USC 1304(e) and 8 USC 1306(a)). The new Arizona law simply states that violating federal immigration law is now a state crime as well. Because illegal immigrants are by definition in violation of federal immigration laws, they can now be arrested by local law enforcement in Arizona.

• The law is designed to avoid the legal pitfall of “pre-emption,” which means a state can’t adopt laws that conflict with federal laws. By making what is a federal violation also a state violation, the Arizona law avoids this problem. Look at the Supreme Court Decision of Muehler vs Mena a 9 – 0 Land Mark Decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on this very issue of pre-emption, 4th and 14th Amendment issue.

Actually we have some safe guards in Arizona law that the federal law does not have. The fear is not about profiling … the fear is not about concerns over legal contact … even the liberal press understands those issues. The fear is the law will actually be enforced. AND IT WILL. We have put some teeth in this law to make sure it is enforced.

• The law only allows police to ask about immigration status in the normal course of “lawful contact” with a person, such as a traffic stop or if they have committed a crime.

• Estimates from the federal government indicate that more than 80 percent of illegal immigrants come from Latin America.12 Thus; there is concern that police may target only Hispanics for enforcement.

• Before asking a person about immigration status, law enforcement officials are required by the law to have a lawful contact/a violation of law and “a reasonable suspicion” that a person is an illegal immigrant. The concept of “reasonable suspicion” is well established by court rulings. Since Arizona does not issue driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, having a valid license creates a presumption of legal status. Examples of reasonable suspicion include:

• A driver stopped for a traffic violation has no license, or record of a driver’s license or other form of federal or state identification.

• A police officer observes someone buying fraudulent identity documents or crossing the border illegally.

• A police officer recognizes a gang member back on the street who he knows has been previously deported by the federal government.

• The law specifically states that police, “may not consider race, color or national origin” when implementing SB 1070.

• When Arizona’s governor signed the new law, she also issued an executive order requiring the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board to provide local police with additional training on what does and what does not constitute “reasonable suspicion.”13

Rancher Rob Krentz was murdered by the drug cartel on his ranch a month ago. I held a senate hearing two weeks ago on border violence. One only had to hear the concerns and pleas from these folks to recognize the monumental failure of government to secure our borders and enforce our laws and the cost to our citizens.

Here are just some of the highlights from those who testified.

The people who live within 60 to 80 miles of the Arizona/Mexico Border have for years been terrorized and have pleaded for help to stop the daily invasion of humans who cross their property. One Rancher testified that 300 to 1200 people a DAY come across his ranch, vandalizing his property, stealing his vehicles and property, cutting down his fences, and leaving trash. In the last two years he has found 17 dead bodies and two Qu'ran bibles.

Another rancher testified that on a daily basis drugs are brought across his ranch in a military operation. A point man with a machine gun goes in front, 1/2 mile behind are the guards fully armed, 1/2 mile behind them are the drugs, behind the drugs 1/2 mile are more guards. These people are violent and they will kill anyone who gets in the way. This was not the only rancher we heard that day that talked about the drug trains.

One man told of two illegal's who came upon his property, one shot in the back and the other in the arm by the drug runners who had forced them to carry the drugs and then shot them. They listen to gun fire during the night; it is not safe to leave his family alone on the ranch and they can't leave the ranch for fear of nothing being left when they come back.

The border patrol is not on the border. They have set up 60 miles away with check points that do nothing to stop the invasion. They are not allowed to use force in stopping anyone who is entering. They run around chasing them, if they get their hands on them, then they can take them back across the border.

Federal prisons have over 35% illegals incarcerated, and 20% of Arizona prisons are filled with illegals who have committed felonies. In the last few years, 80% of our law enforcement personnel who have been killed or wounded were done by an illegal alien.

The majority of people coming now are people we need to be worried about. The ranchers told us that they have seen a change in the people coming they are not just those who are looking for work and a better life.

The Federal Government has refused for years to do anything to help the Border States. We have been overrun and once they are here, Arizonans have the burden of funding state services that they use. Education costs have been over a billion dollars. The healthcare costs for illegal aliens runs into the billions of dollars. Our State is broke; $3.5 billion deficit and we have many serious decisions to make. One is that we do not have the money to care for any who are not here legally. It has to stop.

The border can be secured. We have the technology; we have the ability to stop this invasion. We must know who is coming and they must come in legally so that we can assimilate them into our population and protect the sovereignty of our country. We are a nation of laws. We have a responsibility to protect our citizens and to protect the integrity of our country and the government which we live under.

It will do no good to forgive them because millions more will come behind them, and we will be over run to the point that there will no longer be a United States of America but, a North American Union of open borders. I ask you what form of government will we live under?

How long will it be before we will be just like Mexico? We have already lost our language; everything must be printed in Spanish. We have already lost our history since it is no longer taught in our schools. And we have lost our borders.

The leftist media has done everything in its power to distort what SB 1070 will do. It is not going to set up a Nazi Germany. Are you kidding? The ACLU and the leftist courts will do everything to protect those who are here illegally, but it was an effort to try and stop illegal's from setting up businesses, and employment, and receiving state services and give the ability to local law enforcement when there is probable cause, such as a traffic stop to determine if they are here legally. Federal law is very clear if you are here on a visa you must have your papers on you at all times. That is the law. In Arizona all you need to show you as a legal citizen is a driver license, MVD identification card, Native American Card, or a Military ID. This is what you need to vote, get a hunting license, etc... So nothing new has been added to this law. No one is going to be stopped walking down the street. The leftists here and in DC are angry because we dare try and do something. They want the "Transformation" to continue.

Maybe it is too late to save America. Maybe we are not worthy of freedom anymore. But as an elected official I must try to do what I can to protect our Constitutional Republic. Living in America is not a right just because you can walk across the border. Being an American is a responsibility, and it comes through respecting and upholding the Constitution, the law of our land which says what you must do to be a citizen of this country. Freedom is not free.

The Patriot's mission is to inform and arm grassroots Patriots with our forthright message in support of individual liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and the promotion of free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values -- the information needed to combat the leftist agenda that relentlessly undermines our nation's great Constitution and founding principles.

Throughout history the burden of keeping the flame of liberty bright has fallen on the shoulders of a few men and women. As Founding Patriot Samuel Adams noted, "It does not take a majority to prevail...but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." That describes YOU!

Preamble: We The People of the United States establish and ordain this Constitution of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

We are being robbed of our Freedoms; we owe it to our children and great grandchildren to leave them a legacy of freedom.

Have you had enough taxation, regulation, over-spending, over-borrowing, bailouts, stimulus packages, and redistribution of wealth? How well is your government serving you? On top of that, they plan to expand entitlement programs, under the misguided belief that government should provide for everybody...... I wonder who will be left to work for a living. Folks we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.

Politicians and bleeding hearts have run out of YOUR money. How about a new deal for responsible taxpayers that starts with the premise that government/taxpayer is not responsible for raising your children? I believe in charity. We should all have a good heart and be willing to help. But charity is when you write a check out of your own check book, not to take it through the force of government to give to others.

Let's take America back one city, one state at a time.

“These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.” Thomas Paine, Dec. 23, 1773, The Crisis.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

If you really want to change the country, start by becoming a Republican Party Precinct Committeeman! The most powerful office in the world because Precinct Committeemen determine who gets the chance to be elected to office at every level of government.

1. To change things, we must change the laws.

2. To change the laws, we must change the people who make them.

3. To get elected, your candidate must be on the ballot.

4. To get on the November ballot you must win the Primary.

5. To win the Primary, you must get the support of people who make endorsements in the Primary, who reliably vote in the Primary, and who get out the vote of others in the Primary. Those people are the Precinct Committeemen.

Most importantly, Precinct Committeemen get to vote in the Party elections that determine the leadership of the Party. The more conservatives who become Precinct Committeemen, the more conservative the Party, and its candidates, will become. The Party again might appear to the voters to offer a clear choice from the Democrat Party, rather than an echo of it.

By becoming a Precinct Committeeman, you get to ACTUALLY VOTE for the Party leadership. YOU GET TO CAST A VOTE FOR YOUR LOCAL REPUBLICAN LEADERS UP TO THE COUNTY LEVEL, AND THEN GET TO ELECT ELECTORS WHO ELECT THE STATE AND NATIONAL PARTY LEADERS. If those who accept, understand and advocate conservative principles become a majority IN THE PARTY RANKS, guess what? The Party leadership voted in will be those who accept, understand and advocate conservative principles. This just happened here in Arizona.

Call the AZ GOP at: (602) 957-7770) www.azgop.org

Call the Maricopa County GOP at: (623) 977-4532 www.maricopagop.org

Do you want to get involved in politics and advance the conservative agenda? I DO. One thing I recently found out is that the Maricopa County GOP has over 4,000 openings for precinct committeeman and my Legislative District 18 has only 25% of its Precinct Committeeman positions filled. I also understand this situation exists all across the country. Imagine if we could fill those openings with real conservatives! With Patriots who understand that Freedom isn't Free. That will rise up and are willing to commit their ... lives ... their fortunes ... and their sacred honor to defend and preserve this Republic. May God Bless America and help us to keep this Republic.

Most importantly, Precinct Committeemen get to vote in the Party elections that determine the leadership of the Party (WE HAVE HAD SOME REALLY CLOSE RACES TO KEEP CONSERVATIVE LEADERSHIP). The more conservatives who become Precinct Committeemen, the more conservative the Party, and its candidates, will become. The Party again might appear to the voters to offer a clear choice from the Democrat Party, rather than an echo of it.

The Most Powerful Office in the World is NOT the President of the United States. hile the claim is a bit exaggerated, it does make some fairly good points. If you want to make a difference in politics, the precinct is the place to start.

Becoming a Precinct Committeeman, you get to ACTUALLY VOTE for the Party leadership. YOU GET TO CAST A VOTE FOR YOUR LOCAL REPUBLICAN LEADERS UP TO THE COUNTY LEVEL, AND THEN GET TO ELECT ELECTORS WHO ELECT THE STATE AND NATIONAL PARTY LEADERS. If those who accept understand and advocate conservative principles become a majority IN THE PARTY RANKS, guess what? The Party leadership voted in will be those who accept, understand and advocate conservative principles. This just happened here in Arizona.

Find out which Legislative District you live in. Find out when the next meeting of that Legislative District Committee takes place. Then go to the meeting and tell the chairman you want to volunteer to be a Precinct Committeeman. Or call the Chairman before then. You'll have to gather a few signatures to get on the ballot. Once the election comes around, you'll be elected. Meanwhile, volunteer to DO SOMETHING in support of your conservative values and principles WITHIN THE PARTY. You will be leading by example. Many of the moderates are moderates because they don't know how to think and be conservative. You can show them by your DEEDS.

Now get to it!

Comment

You need to be a member of Patriotic Resistance to add comments!

Join Patriotic Resistance

rel find Comment by rel find on August 16, 2010 at 1:39am
Senator Lindsey Graham`s New Gimmick for Amnesty - Change the 14th Amendment !

Posted by johnwk on August 13, 2010

See What about the children if 14th Amendment changed? (I ask Senator Lindsey Graham)

"Senator Lindsey Graham said he may seek to change the 14th Amendment's provision that awards US citizenship to all those born in the United
States."


But Lindsey Graham’s proposal to change the 14th Amendment’s provision that awards US citizenship to all those born in the United States is a cover and ruse to suggest that the millions upon millions of babies born to aliens who entered America illegally are now citizens of the united states.

Graham’s proposal fraudulently supposes that babies born to foreigners while on American soil become citizens of the united states, when in fact the 14th Amendment was specifically designed and worded to excluded from
citizenship babies born to foreigners while on America soil.

Suggesting that we need to change the 14th Amendment is a clever gimmick by Graham and his open border crowd to surreptitiously pretend the millions and millions of babies born on American soil to mothers who have entered our
country illegally are citizens.

They are not citizens, Senator Graham, and we don’t need any change to the 14th Amendment, we simply need its documented intentions to be observed. The 14th Amendment states in part:

“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.”

The qualifying words “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are the key words Senator Graham intentionally overlooks to pretend that babies born to those who have entered our Country illegally are now citizens of the united States.

Why are these qualifying words important? Because those who framed the 14th Amendment intentionally sought to not grant citizenship upon birth to children born to foreigners and aliens while on American soil, and especially not to
aliens who have entered our country illegally!

Let us look at some of the historical facts concerning the 14th Amendment.

For example, Senator Howard states during the debates on the adoption of the 14th Amendment the following:

“The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.

I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion.

This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that 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 tothe 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."
See: Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890

And in IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) the SCOTUS emphatically states with regard to the 14th Amendment:

“That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and
citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”


And on May 30th, during the debates when framing the 14th Amendment and after the question was repeatedly asked as to who is and who is not a citizen of the United States, Mr. TRUMBULL responds as follows:

“The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” . . . “What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” see: 1st column halfway down

Mr. Trumbull later [same page] emphasizes in crystal clear language that: “It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is “subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States”


Mr. JOHNSON then rises to say: “…there is no definition in the Constitution as it now stands as to citizenship. Who is a citizen of the United States is an open
question….there is no definition as to how citizenship can exist in the United States except through the medium of a citizenship in a State.

“Now, all that this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power--for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before
us--shall be considered as citizens of the United States.”

 …he then continues “…the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.”

And how does one make themselves subject to the complete jurisdiction of the united States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment? Surprise! By our naturalization process which requires an “Oath of Allegiance to the
United States” which is taken during naturalization proceedings.

The following is the text of the Oath Of Allegiance

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject
or citizen;

that I will support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic;

that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law;

that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God”


By this oath, an alien becomes “subject to the jurisdiction” of the united States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment and a baby born to such an individual would then be a citizen of the US because its mother owes her allegiance to the United States and would be subject to the jurisdiction of the united States within the meaning of
the 14th Amendment! .

We need to get rid of Sen. Open-borders Graham who has repeatedly shown his disloyalty to our country and his oath of office to uphold our Constitution!

Regards,
JWK

'This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.'

The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States,but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.
___ Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 101 (1884)
rel find Comment by rel find on July 24, 2010 at 2:41pm
I am going to,

You live alot closer to them, that might get them to take the extra time to really look into this very legitimate constitutionally-sound legal-approach to counter the DOJ's inaccurate-incorrect legal-constitutional assertions related to their complaint and this whole case, and their incorrect use of the words-terms "naturalization" and "immigration", as they relate to the correct reading of the US Constitution.

They're so busy, getting alot of email. They may give your email more priority, interest, concern, trust, obligation to take the little extra time that they can't really afford to give up to take other people not directly involved in the cases advice, and take the time to actually investigate this approach.

johnwk is really onto something here with this. He says in his 2 articles that the AZ legal team has not brought this up at a point in the case where the judge was challenging them on the DOJ's assertions, and that if they had, they would have won the argument at that point or at least caused the judge to look into it further.

Also just by bringing up the very valid point, gives a good grounds for an appeal if one is needed in this case, hopefully it won't be needed. Also there are going to be alot of other cases regarding AZ SB 1070, and the sooner the correct reading of the law and the Constitutuion relating to the words-terms, "naturalization" and "immigration" that johnwk has pointed out to us all, are brought out the better.

I am going to email it to them but expect 100's of others to do the same thing,

thanks for the email addresses.
rel find Comment by rel find on July 24, 2010 at 5:54am
Thanks for their email addresses.

Source info is:

100% from site member johnwk. He gave permission to get all of his info, including both articles I've listed here, related to the AZ SB 1070 case to the AZ Governor, State Senator, and the AZ SB 1070 legal team.

Both articles I've listed here; one being the article I printed to this page and the 2cnd article being the link to the 2cnd article I've listed below in this comment.

I copied the 1st article of the 2, that's the one I printed here for you, but only the 2cnd article is still listed under johnwk's discussions.

They need to get this info asap so that they can read it and realize what they've possibly missed because they haven't mentioned it yet in the case, that is fully described in JWK's conclusion gathered from his amazing research. So that they can use it now or as a back up if they get opposition from this judge, for other ongoing and future lawsuits regarding the AZ SB 1070 laws, and for use in appeals cases if they occur !!!

Here is his current discussion on this topic, send that one also in the email, the 2 together give a much better more complete overview-irrefutable-proof-backed-up-opinion of the topic at hand.

Arizona is not usurping federal power with SB-1070, but the big lie continues. Why?
http://www.resistnet.com/forum/topics/arizona-is-not-usurping?comme...

See offsite article listed by johnwk: Judge doubts constitutionality of a portion of Arizona's immigration law

I'll email them with the 2 articles but can you too send them the same, since you're so much closer to them they may read your email with more interest, concern, and trust that they decide that they should actually take the time to investigate the offer of help-assistance and get to realize that this might be what they are looking for, to back them now, on an appeal, and/or for the multitude of varying cases that they will face in regards to AZ SB 1070. The sooner it's brought up in court the better it is for their-our cases use of it and the cases outcome !!!
Sandra Lee Smith Comment by Sandra Lee Smith on July 24, 2010 at 4:54am
Since you have the source info on this, it would be better coming from you. You can reach Governor Brewer at www.az.gov easily, and Senator Pearce's office e-mail is rpearce@azleg.gov I'm sure they'd both be very appreciative. They do take and respond to e-mails still, unlike some of the DC set. Governor Brewer also has a facebook page.
rel find Comment by rel find on July 24, 2010 at 4:44am
Can someone help to get this out to the Arizona; Governor Jan Brewer, State Senator Russell Pearse, and the AZ SB 1070 legal team asap ??? Or they're going to lose the case !!!

Edwin Kneedler Deputy Solicitor General for the DOJ makes it up, re-writes history for the judge in the Arizona SB-1070 case!

See: Judge doubts constitutionality of a portion of Arizona's immigration law

"The ultimate authority for enforcing (immigration laws) vests in the United States," said Edwin Kneedler, the deputy solicitor general. "The framers were very concerned that one member of the union could embroil the nation in a controversy."

Mr. Kneedler is correct that the founding fathers were concerned that one member of the union could embroil the nation in a controversy. But he made it up when implying, that because a potential controversy may erupt over immigration “The ultimate authority for enforcing (immigration laws) vests in the United States," This is flat wrong and re-writing historical fact.

Now let us look at the irrefutable facts. The truth is, the word “immigration” does not appear in our Constitution and the power to regulate immigration at the time our Constitution was adopted, was a power exercised by each of the states and it was never relinquished or delegated to the Congress of the united States!

What was delegated to Congress was the power to set the requirements which aliens ___ regardless of what State they immigrated to ___ would have to meet to become a “citizen of the united states”, and this is the power vested in Congress to avoid the potential controversiesbetween the States which Edwin Kneedler alluded to. And why was this specific power necessary to avoid the “controversy” Kneedler alluded to? Representative Sherman, who attended the Constitutional Convention which framed our Constitution gives us the answer to this very question, and does so in crystal clear language! He says:

“that Congress should have the power of naturalization, in order to [u]prevent particular States receiving citizens, and forcing them upon others who would not have received them in any other manner[/u]. It was therefore meant to guard against an improper mode of naturalization, rather than foreigners should be received upon easier terms than those adopted by the several States.” See CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES, Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, ...

The truth is, our founders were very "concerned" about the quality, loyalty and virtue of immigrants who became a citizen in one of the states, because once an immigrant became a citizen of one state, they would be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States SEE: Article 4, Section 2 of the Constitution.

The very intentions for placing the power over “Naturalization” (granting citizenship) in the hands of Congress was to prevent some states from granting citizenship on easy terms or to unworthy aliens. The idea was to have Congress set a number of specific requirements an alien must meet before being granted citizenship, and the requirements were to insure a high quality immigrant population. But all this is documented in the debates over our nation’s first “Rule of Naturalization”.

Bottom line is, Edwin Kneedler is evading the truth-in effect he's lieing. The States have never relinquished their original power over immigration to the federal government, but the lawyer representing Arizona has never read our nation’s founding documents so he is at a loss to document the very intentions under which our Constitution was adopted and challenge the federal government‘s alleged authority within Arizona‘s borders over an original policing power retained by the various states.

Arizona’s lawyer needs to immediately invoke judicial notice with the court and provide the historical documentation that the intended power granted over “naturalization” is limited to the power of setting the qualifications an alien must meet to become a “citizen of the united States”.

JUCICIAL NOTICE

On the federal trial court level, judicial notice is recognized in rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence for U.S. District Courts and Magistrates. Rule 201 provides, in part, that "[a] judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.

Under rule 201 a trial court must take judicial notice of a well-known fact at the request of one of the parties, if the court is provided with information supporting the fact.A court also has the option to take judicial notice at its discretion, without a request from a party.

Regards,

JWK

"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)
forerunner Comment by forerunner on June 23, 2010 at 5:26am
That long post was designed to bring up the different and sometimes hidden strategies, arguments, claims, and counter-claims, that the opposition might present to Federal Judges against anyone who will go into a US Court to try to defend new or old State laws that stop "foreign-national-illegal-aliens" from being given so many, rights, entitlements, benefits, and so much free stuff, like they are given in the US, that they really are not legally entitled to, because they have entered into and are residing here in the US illegally.

It would be one thing if there were only 1,000,000 "foreign-national-illegal-aliens" in the US, and we were able to keep it at that number and no higher.

I wrote that post after it was announced that Arizona is going to also pass a new State law to stop the practice of anchor-babies in Arizona, and that they would like to see that law enacted throughout the US in order for it to be truly effective and beneficial for the whole US.

It was said in an interview that the "foreign-national-illegal-aliens" were actually not eligible under the 14th amendments US-Citizenship and Jurisdiction clauses to be able to gain US-Citizenship for their US born children. I wrote down a ton of stuff that the liberal lawyers could use to say that the "foreign-national-illegal-aliens" are in fact under the Jurisdiction of the US, because they are constantly being; detained, arrested, jailed, and either deported or released into US society.

The "foreign-national-illegal-aliens" are required to go to US Courts and are; tried, sentenced, convicted, sent to US prisons and/or are deported, found not guilty, released into US society and/or deported.

If you read the 14th amendment it says that foreign ambassadors and their family members cannot become US citizens because they are in effect not only citizens from another country, but the ambassadors are also government officials from and representing that other country.

They and their family members are not covered under the US-Citizenship and Jurisdiction clauses of the 14th amendment, because they're not under US Jurisdiction. They're under the Jurisdiction and are subject to the laws of their own home country.

In an interview with Bill O'reilly about how Arizona is soon going to be passing a law that stops the anchor-baby-legal-loophole from being used in Arizona, and to try to get it passed nationwide, so that it's more effective, and most American citizens are for a new law to stop this fraudulent-illegal-scam.

Senator Pearce said that he was basing his decision to go forward with the new law, because "foreign-national-illegal-aliens" and their US born children were not covered under the 14th amendments Jurisdiction clause and therefor they're not entitled to automatic US-citizenship under the 14th amendments US-citizenship clause, because they are "foreign-nationals" just like "foreign-national-ambassadors-diplomats" and their family members, who are residing and working in the US are.

Of course I want us all to win these cases when these new laws are challenged in Federal Courts. So I listed all of the things that the "foreign-national-illegal-aliens" legal-aid lawyers-advocates will claim that they are subjected to in the US on a regular basis, that "foreign-national-ambassadors-diplomats" and their family members almost never are, to prove their claims and case to the effect that "foreign-national-illegal-aliens" are in fact under US Jurisdiction, by way of how they are treated-handled every day on a massive scale throughout the US.

Such as "foreign-national-illegal-aliens" are constantly being; detained, arrested, jailed, and either deported or released into US society. The "foreign-national-illegal-aliens" are required to go to US Courts and are; tried, sentenced, convicted, sent to US prisons and/or are deported, found not guilty, released into US society and/or deported.

Their plan is to effect the Federal Judges overall views to agree that the legal status of the "foreign-national-illegal-aliens" while they are residing and working in the US for short and/or extended amounts of time, is, should be, or should be seen as, a more US-citizenship friendly type legal status.

They'll try to do this by trying to get the Judges to view
the "foreign-national-illegal-aliens" legal status as being more deserving or worthy of a more US-citizenship friendly type legal status, because of their claims that the "foreign-national-illegal-aliens" usual daily routine consists of working, hard-labor-jobs, and having families and interacting with them, and for any other reasons that they can come up with.

They'll also do this by trying to distance the "foreign-national-illegal-aliens" legal status which they say is, should be, or should be seen as, a more US-citizenship ly type legal status on the one-side, compared to the; "foreign-national-ambassadors-diplomats" and their familily members, unmovable-unchangable status of "foreign nationals" legal status on the other-side.

So that they can try to give the Federal Judges a more US-citizenship friendly type view of the "foreign-national-illegal-aliens" legal status, compared to the unmovable-unchangable "foreign national" legal status of the "foreign-national-ambassadors-diplomats" and their family members, who are working and residing in the US.

My conclusion is that "foreign-national-illegal-aliens" are not supposed to be under US Jurisdiction, except to detain them for removal out of this country and then to send them back to their homeland, and that's it.

Since it's illegal for them to enter into and then to reside in the US illegally, if we decide to let them do that, then we could say that we're not condoning or agreeing to their illegal entry into and residing illegally in the US. But that we are simply looking the other way and letting them slide for the time being, also lending a helpful hand to the illegal aliens home country, and to the "foreign-national-illegal-aliens" themselves as a citizen of that country, by looking the other way and not deporting them, and that we can withdraw that help and deport them at anytime that we have to.

However, Obama, leftists, liberals, Democrats, liberal pro-illegal-alien lawyers, and advocate groups, the opposition, will try to say that by letting them stay here and set up their lives, work, families here, that all along the way they have some rights in the US, and that the longer that they are allowed to stay in the US and set up their lives, work, and families here, the more that at some point they develop almost full US-citizenship rights, by way of the need to grant or at least not deprive them of them their Civil Rights.

One of which is for them to not be forced to go home to their home countries, or the right to stay in the US, along with with just some limitations to their having full Civil Rights, which are very similar to US-citizenship rights, while staying here in the US.

They will try to claim that, "to try to end any or all of those rights or Civil Rights just because we say we can or need to, in effect subjects the "foreign-national-illegal-aliens" to a multi-tude of "Civil Rightls" based issues-violations." They will claim that this whole topic really is a huge "Humanitarian issue-crisis"; should be treated as such, and that, that fact, that they will try very hard to prove, trumps legal technicalities or procedural issues, in regard to the laws that apply to "foreign-national-illegal-aliens" who enter the US illegally and who are residing in the US illegally, etc.

So read my long post below again and then you'll see that I was just listing some or all of the very heavy points that the opposition will confront the Arizona State legal team with on all of the new or existing Arizona State and US "foreign-national-illegal-alien" related laws-regulations-statutes-rules, etc, that the State of Arizona wants to enforce and to be enforced by the US Government.

From doing all of this writing it seems that what should be gone after, is trying to prove that the fact that they are in the US illegally-illegitimately-fraudulently, etc, is in fact a very heavy factor that should not be allowed to be be mitigated against, for any reason, and that in actuality the "foreign-national-illegal-aliens" always have been, should always be considered as, and are in fact always "foreign nationals" residing in the US illegally.

And the fact that they are treated as good or even better than most low-income US citizens gives them no legal standing to claim and say: "Hey, we've been here for a long time now, and we and our needs have up until now, been recognized and treated just as all US citizens are, recieving-getting all of the same; treatment under the US law, US; entitlements, benefits, social-services, housing, food stamps, anchor-baby-rights-privelages, welfare, etc.

It's not the same when we first come over here illegally as when we are allowed to stay in the US and set up our lives, work, and families here. You have to treat us more like US citizens, not less. Your new laws take away from our being treated more like US citizens and the way that "foreign-national-illegal-aliens" have been treated in the recent past, and are currently treated in the US.

You can't go backwards in the fight and just cause for minority Civil Rights in the US. We've fought long and hard for these Civil Rights, you can't take them away with your new laws. You're going in the opposite direction of progress in the field and just cause of minority Civil Rights.

These are some of the claims that the opposition will use to try to get the Federal Judges to take their side in the court cases.

The key is to prove them wrong by proving that they are in fact very much the same now as when they first came here illegally as "foreign-national-illegal-aliens". They are still very much "foreign nationals" who are now "illegally" residing in the US and recieving benefits that only US citizens are entitled to, out of our looking the other way, so as to provide them with some charity on behalf of the US government, out of charity to their home country, and not with the approval of even a simple majority of the US-American people-citizens.

Read my post below it lists most or all of the things that the oppositions legal team will respond with, such as;

"As long as we've let the "foreign-national-illegal-aliens" including their young and US born children stay here and they recieve the same; treatment under the US law, and recieve all of the same US; entitlements, benefits, social-services, housing, food stamps, anchor-baby-rights-privelages, welfare, etc. that US citizens do.

We cannot all of a sudden just say to the "foreign-national-illegal-aliens" who are fully living and working in the US with families, and are fully engaged-involved with-into US society.

"Oops, sorry, but I-we was-were meaning to get around to telling you to, "go home, get out, I can't handle taking care of you anymore",

Their liberal legal aid lawers will tell the Federal Judges, "that it's just not fair to do that-this to so many "foreign-national-illegal-aliens", who are living in the US right now by the 10's of millions."

That's just an example of the kinds of arguments they will use to counter our claims that the "foreign-national-illegal-aliens" are in the US illegally and are not entitled to; ( fill in any number of things here ) and so we want to pass these State laws that prevents-stops them from __, etc...

If you read my post again you'll see that one of the main points of it was to figure out what every one of their possible claims, counter-claims, or replies that they will try to use will be, and to have a fully planned out counter-claim-reply to their claims, counter-claims, and replys ready to go, before you even have to go to court with them, when their court challenges to your new laws start coming in.

In other words, be fully prepared now, way-beforehand, for any and all of the possible replies, claims, and counter-claims, that they will be working very hard to come up with, so that they can try to get Federal Judges to agree with them in-on their side of the cases.

Another thing, when that Chinese mans parents came to the USA it was legal to do so, as long as you were not engaging in any kind of illegal activity while here. When that man was born it was still legal to enter the US in the same manner.

Soon thereafter laws were passed in the US barring any further immigration from China or Chinese citizens from anywhere else to the USA, because of labor shortages amongst US citizens and a very large amount of Chinese laborors already in the US, who were competing with US citizens for employment-jobs.

All of these factors affected his case. Even with the illegality for anymore Chinese citizens being allowed into the US after 1882 he was still granted US-citizenship in 1896, because it was determined by the US Supreme Court that both of his parents originally entered into the US on acceptable legal conditions, and the same for the whole time that they were in the US.

Including the requirement for no illegal activity being committed by anyone in his family within the US from the time his parents arrived in the US such a long time before up until he was born in the US, and then up until his parents left the US in the 1890's, and during the whole time while he was living in the US.

The current "foreign-national-illegal-aliens" status should on the face of it give them no standing to be entitled to anything in the US.

But because of the multitude of ready willing and able left-wing-liberal lawyers and judges, they are advocated for endlessly and we must try really hard to find the right convincing languge to reply with to their cases, claims, counter-claims, and replies.

That describes fully what the full-true intent of the laws in the US lawbooks is, and how it refutes-disproves the oppositions cases, claims, counter-claims, and replies, that they design and deliver on behalf of the "foreign-national-illegal-aliens" living in the US "illegally", and those that are coming across the border "illegally" every day.

Also someone wrote a reply to a post somewhere and it makes sense. What if Obama, Holder, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Sharpton, Reid, Pelosi, Schumer, Boxer, Napolitano, Salazar, Ortiz, Serrano, Guttierez, George Bush-1 and 2, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Rick Perry, Bill Richardson, Arnold-CA, Jeb Bush, Mike Bloomberg, etc.

Master plan is to be able to defeat the Arizona SB 1070 law with big "Civil Rights based" cases, claims, counter-claims, etc. and mass Civil Rights demonstrations, marches, rallys, and speeches going on just before the AZ SB 1070 illegal alien laws case begins.

So that they can then go on to win the case, and then they can go on to use that win in the Arizona State case as a precedent to go after the "Federal Immigration laws" by bringing it all the way up to the Supreme Court also, and get the parts that they don't like or all of the "Federal Immigration laws" overruled, based on Civil Rights Issues and violations, that they will claim and try to prove.

This might just be what they are planning to try to do.

So the Arizona State legal team should try to get as many Conservative; lawyers, retired judges, State and US Congressmen, and other citizens to volunteer and also hire as many lawyers and para-legals as they can. So that they can help to build the best and most solid cases and defenses,

So that the leftist-liberal-Democrats legal teams who are advocating for all of the "foreign-national-illegal-aliens" whims, wishes, and every want, cannot beat the Arizona States legal teams cases and defenses, with any of these-their kinds-types of "Civil Rights based" and all other kinds-types of; cases, claims, counter-claims, defenses, arguments, and replies, that they will try to use effectively against the Arizona State legal team and any of their; cases, claims, counter-claims, defenses, arguments, and replies.
Sandra Lee Smith Comment by Sandra Lee Smith on June 22, 2010 at 8:55am
The banks have different rules when you marque dos. It's only we dumb Americans those apply to...
debi guenterberg Comment by debi guenterberg on June 22, 2010 at 8:52am
Please check out MALDEFAN, this is a Latino organization who La Raza supports with our TAX dollar money. I am sickened by the amount of illegal aliens winning cases, of course all using our American constitution as their base to stand on. If you google this site you can read about all the cases they have won and what power they have in our government. 2 people sued (of course) illegal aliens because they could not get "married" without a SSN. The couple won and got a settlement. I bet they both had SSN numbers for their job. Another illegal alien woman claimed she was beaten by police and detained too long in jail. She was arrested for writing a bad check. ICE had a hold order on so law enforcement was holding her for ICE. Don't you need a SSN or be here legally to open a checking account. She sued and won. Another was stopped for a broken tail light. She demanded a Spanish interpreter, she did not have a driver's license, and only could show her green card to the officer. The story says she has been her working for 11 years. Now, I guess that means she must of had a Spanish interpreter when she took her driving test. Another perfect example of HOW ABOUT LEARNING ENGLISH. How do these illegal aliens pay for their attorney? They don't , we do...
debi guenterberg Comment by debi guenterberg on June 22, 2010 at 8:39am
Let's face it, our government has allowed foreigners to have more Constitutional Rights than we do. How many cases have any of you read that dealt with an American who is suing somebody or government agency? I am not a racist but I certainly have not read anything later about anyone white having a case that has made the news. In past history, many ethic groups have had their civil rights violated and women of all races past and present, have not made headline news when their rights have been violated. This goes for the victims of crimes too. Federal Judges and most Judges are full of themselves. Must be nice to have a job for life. I have been in a courtroom many times and have seen for myself how each judge interrupts the law as they see it and not really how the law is written. They remind me of Judge Judy on TV. An illegal alien has a better chance at winning a civil right case or a lawsuit than American citizen do. While I believe that those that owe child support should pay, I find it sad that our local paper prints their pictures and for $131.00 in back child support, they are listed as the COUNTY'S MOST WANTED. Yet in our county and country we have illegal aliens owing thousands of dollars of child support, working here illegally, getting credit illegally, driving drunk, selling drugs, raping and killing people.
Sandra Lee Smith Comment by Sandra Lee Smith on June 22, 2010 at 6:32am
Okay, but the people you need to be telling all this are the legislators; I'm just your basic citizen, in a small desert town about 100 miles from Phoenix...not a lawyer or a legislator. I just happen to support the notion of stopping the anchor babies and illegal invasion, like about 70% of my fellow citizens.You can reach Senator Pearce at rpearce@azleg.gov, or (602) 926- 5760. I can get you some of the others' e-mails too, if you need them. Governor Brewer has a Facebook page, her first name is Janice. They're the ones who need to know all these intricacies, along with the lawyers helping them put together the bills.

Getting Started Resources and Action

toolbar powered by Conduit
HATE SPEECH will NOT be TOLERATED! Click Here for our No Tolerance Policy

Forum

Admin. II, Dee

Sheriff Joe's Response to the DOJ Lawsuit Against Him 143 Replies

Started by Admin. II, Dee in Immigration, Illegal Aliens, Amnesty, Border Issues. Last reply by Virginia Gomez 2 minutes ago.

JAMES N. HALL III

GOP Takes Unprecedented 10-Point Lead on Generic Ballot! 10 Replies

Started by JAMES N. HALL III in General, Uncategorized Town Hall. Last reply by Phyllis Prather 2 minutes ago.

Asst Natl Dir Mellie

Angry Ron Paul Defends Ground Zero Mosque 1005 Replies

Started by Asst Natl Dir Mellie in Admin Alerts. Last reply by rel find 5 minutes ago.

Sky

Tax Dollars for Muslim Brotherhood Organizations?!? 7 Replies

Started by Sky in Faith in the Public Square. Last reply by Cherry Talsma 16 minutes ago.

MomOf3

Israel Concedes Control of Jerusalem to Palestinians 8 Replies

Started by MomOf3 in General, Uncategorized Town Hall. Last reply by SusieL 26 minutes ago.

Asst Natl Dir Mellie

U.S. files new suit on Ariz. immigration issue 280 Replies

Started by Asst Natl Dir Mellie in Admin Alerts. Last reply by Robert Bechtel 27 minutes ago.

Darla, ADMIN / National Director

How to Impeach a President 203 Replies

Started by Darla, ADMIN / National Director in Admin Alerts. Last reply by Dennis Bartlett 36 minutes ago.

Admin. II, Dee

Never Gonna Stand For This by Teachenor Clark 36 Replies

Started by Admin. II, Dee in General, Uncategorized Town Hall. Last reply by Ron 41 minutes ago.

TONY SALAZAR, SC DIST.#5 COORD;

WHO PLAYED THAT TRUMPET, LAST NIGHT??? 1 Reply

Started by TONY SALAZAR, SC DIST.#5 COORD; in General, Uncategorized Town Hall. Last reply by B. Cote 46 minutes ago.

Admin. II, Dee

The Death of Conservatism Was Greatly Exaggerated 115 Replies

Started by Admin. II, Dee in Admin Alerts. Last reply by Mary and James Abell, Sr. 50 minutes ago.

From Our Tea Party Store!

Book Club Started this Book on August 1st

Check out the description and reviews Here

The Obama Diaries
By Laura Ingraham

The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration's War on America
By Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer

This Book is Officially Out!

The Road to Serfdom: Text and Documents--The Definitive Edition

Tie Dye Constitution Adult T-Shirt

March Details Here
March DC 9-09-9/11
To Donate to Make this a Successful Event Click Here:

Photos

Loading…

Badge

Loading…

© 2010   Created by Grassfire Nation.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

Sign in to chat!