Posts Tagged ‘Arizona Immigration Bill’

After sternly warning college students to stop harassing his wife or they would face consequences, former Rep. Allen West, R-Fla., now finds himself the target of a complaint.

West, a retired Army colonel who narrowly lost his congressional seat after serving a notable freshman term, had responded on Twitter and Facebook to students at Florida Atlantic University, where his wife, Angela, serves on the Board of Trustees.

He explained in a Facebook post Wednesday that students had gone to his wife’s office, “stalked her at the FAU Board of Trustee meetings, and sent letters to her company headquarters.”

“How dare you animals attack my wife and her professional reputation. This is your one and only advisory notice,” West said.

He clarified: “This is not a threat, it is a promise that if Angela calls and tells me of one more incident, you will face me, the side of me that you do not want to see.”

He sent a similar message on Twitter: “To FAU students stalking my wife at Bd of Trustee mtgs, end it now. If u believe you can intimidate her, u are mistaken. Nxt time u face me.”

The board has been confronted by student-led protests over a $6 million stadium-naming deal with private prison operator GEO Group, the Florida Sun-Sentinel reported. GEO Group backed out of the deal April 2 after it was accused of mistreating and neglecting inmates.

Angela West told New Times Broward-Palm Beach she felt harassed because students came to her office uninvited and also called for her to be fired.

In response to West’s messages, Stephanie Rosendorf of the Florida College Democrats filed a complaint with the Florida Atlantic University police against West, claiming his statements were threatening, the Raw Story reported.

Read more here.

Radio host Alex Jones today called for a second American Revolution led by states who would secede from the federal government and reconstitute the Republic under the terms of the Declaration of Independence, bill of rights and constitution.

The call for Americans to rally behind a restoration of the Republic and the bill of rights comes on the back of a burgeoning secessionist movement that has swept the country with residents from all 50 states submitting petitions to the White House calling for states to withdraw from the union and form their own independent governments. The petitions have received a combined number of signatures totaling over a million.

During his nationwide broadcast today, Jones laid out the battle plan for secession, emphasizing that states must first secede from the federal government, which has gone rogue, and then use the terms of the Declaration of Independence to restore the Republic, not create a new country.

Jones stressed that he was calling for a cultural restoration in the spirit of the bill of rights – a newly unified America under the Constitution – and not a violent overthrow, noting that it was the states that created the Constitution and the federal government in the first place.

Jones noted that the only course to restoring liberty was clear – “To follow the founding document of the Republic, the Declaration of Independence, wherein it is clearly stated that it is the right and the duty of the American people, when their government becomes destructive and tyrannical, to abolish and reconstitute it in a form that protects our liberties.”

Read more here.

And once again the CAIR weenies are demanding that the Republican Party leaders repudiate remarks by a GOP congressional candidate who said she does not want “Middle Easterners” in America “either legally or illegally.”

Gabriela Saucedo Mercer, “Tea Party” candidate for U.S. Congress in Arizona’s District 3, is shown in a video interview stating: “If you know Middle Easterners, a lot of them, they look Mexican. . .and they mix. . .those people, their only goal in life is to cause harm to the United States, so why do we want them here, either legally or illegally.”
Hamas-linked CAIR says, “We urge responsible leaders of the Republican Party in Arizona and nationwide to repudiate Ms. Mercer’s bigoted comments,” said CAIR-AZ Board Member Imraan Siddiqi. (When pigs fly) “Her un-American and intolerant remarks are an insult to the millions of Americans of Middle Eastern heritage who have contributed so much to this great nation.” (Yeah, name one)

Read more here.

Voters could get the right to overrule federal laws and mandates under the terms of an initiative filed late Thursday.

The Arizona Constitution already says the federal Constitution “is the supreme law of the land.” This measure, if approved in November, it would add language saying that federal document may not be violated by any government — including the federal government.

More to the point, it would allow Arizonans “to reject any federal action that they determine violates the United States Constitution.”

That could occur through a vote of the state House and Senate with consent of the governor.

But that also could occur through a popular vote on a ballot measure, effectively allowing voters to decide which federal laws they feel infringe on Arizona’s rights as a sovereign state.

Organizer Jack Biltis said he turned in more than 320,000 signatures. The next step will be for the Secretary of State to determine, after screening the petitions, if there are at least 259,213 valid names on the forms to allow the measure to go on the ballot.

Biltis, who said he has spent more than $1.2 million on the campaign so far, said it is time for Arizona to step up and reclaim its constitutional rights.

The “flagship” example, he said, is the federal Affordable Care Act. He said there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution which gives the federal government the power to enact a national health care plan.

Biltis acknowledged that the U.S. Supreme Court, faced with exactly that question, ruled to the contrary.

“I believe the Supreme Court completely got it wrong,” he said. In fact, Biltis argued, the ability of the nation’s high court to interpret — and invalidate — federal laws itself is not part of the U.S. Constitution but was claimed by the court in 1803.

“The only portion of government that has unlimited powers are the state governments and the people themselves,” he said. Biltis said that, under his measure, Arizona could simply refuse to participate, though it would do so at risk of losing federal dollars.

But Biltis’ objections to federal authority are not partisan. He is equally upset with the Patriot Act, passed during the administration of George W. Bush, which gives the federal government broad powers to detain people without trial.

And then there are other issues that might not seem so weighty but that Biltis finds to be constitutionally unacceptable, like the federal law, signed during the Bush administration, which phases out the manufacture and sale of incandescent light bulbs to save energy. The most popular replacement to date has been compact fluorescent bulbs which have their own environmental issues if broken.

“Besides the insanity of it, if you have a federal government that can choose to ban a light bulb that has existed for 100 years, that served us pretty well, what can’t they do?” he asked.

Nor is Biltis troubled by the idea of individual states interpreting federal law — and nullifying those they believe are unconstitutional. He said that is precisely what happened in pre-Civil War days when some Northern states refused to honor the federal Fugitive Slave Act which required escaped slaves to be returned to their owners.

Read more here.

The U.S. Supreme Court voted 5-3 to strike down three of four provisions in Arizona’s controversial immigration law, ruling in favor of the federal government, Fox News reports.

However, Justices upheld the so-called “stop and check” provision that allows police in Arizona to check an individual’s immigration status after a crime is committed if there is “reasonable suspicion” the person is in the U.S. illegally.

The state has geared up for massive protests regardless of the ultimate decision by the Supreme Court. Both supporters and staunch critics of the law had reportedly planned protests at the Arizona State Capitol building.

In preparation for the ruling, Ariz. Governor Jan Brewer also issued a two-page executive order essentially telling the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board to redistribute a training DVD for SB 1070.

The videos are to be distributed to all law enforcement agencies across the Arizona. The DVD discusses everything from reasonable suspicion to foreign vehicle registration.

A major point is made in the video instructing officers to not racially profile. It also includes types of acceptable identification that should end an officer‘s suspicions about a person’s immigration status.

SB 1070 was passed two years ago and signed into law by Governor Brewer. The move sparked a massive debate and legal challenges which have ultimately led to the Supreme Court.

Portions of the law were blocked including a provision requiring police to question people‘s immigration status while enforcing other laws if there’s a reasonable suspicion they’re in the country illegally.

As many news reports have indicated, the ruling is hardly the end to the heated immigration debate, but rather just the latest development in an ongoing political battle.

Read more here.

Legally, President Obama has reiterated the principle that he can pick and choose which U.S. laws he wishes to enforce (see his decision to reverse the order of the Chrysler creditors, his decision not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, and his administration’s contempt for national-security confidentiality and Senate and House subpoenas to the attorney general). If one individual can decide to exempt nearly a million residents from the law — when he most certainly could not get the law amended or repealed through proper legislative or judicial action — then what can he not do? Obama is turning out to be the most subversive chief executive in terms of eroding U.S. law since Richard Nixon.

Politically, Obama calculates that some polls showing the current likely Hispanic support for him in the high 50s or low 60s would not provide enough of a margin in critical states such as Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado, or perhaps also in Florida and Virginia, to counteract the growing slippage of the independent vote and the energy of the clinger/tea-party activists. Thus, what was not legal or advisable in 2009, 2010, or 2011, suddenly has become critical in mid-2012. No doubt free green cards will quickly lead to citizenship and a million new voters. Will it work politically? Obama must assume lots of things: that all Hispanics vote as a block in favoring exempting more illegal aliens from the law, and are without worry that the high unemployment rate hits their community among the hardest; that black voters, stung by his gay-marriage stance, will not resent what may be seen as de facto amnesty, possibly endangering his tiny (and slipping) lead in places like Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. And because polls show overwhelming resistance to non-enforcement of immigration law, Obama also figures that the minority who supports his recent action does so far more vehemently than the majority who opposes it. Time will tell; but my gut feeling is that his brazen act will enrage far more than it will delight — and for a variety of different reasons. As with all his special-interest efforts — the Keystone cancellation, war-on-women ploy, gay-marriage turnabout, and now de facto amnesty — Obama believes dividing Americans along class, ethnic, gender, and cultural lines will result in a cobbled together majority, far more preferable than a 1996 Clinton-like effort to win over the independents by forging a bipartisan consensus.

Economically, why would we formalize nearly a million new legally authorized workers when unemployment is approaching its 41st consecutive month over 8 percent — especially when Democrats used to label 5.4 percent unemployment as a “jobless recovery”? Here in California, the slowing of illegal immigration, due mostly to the fence and tough times, has led to steep wage hikes for entry-level and farm labor, and given a little more clout to Americans in so-called unskilled-labor fields. In other words, it really is true that the real beneficiaries of border enforcement are low-paid Hispanic-Americans and African-Americans who become more valued when they are not competing with virtually unlimited numbers of illegal-alien workers.

Read more here.

An Arizona sheriff says five bodies found burned beyond recognition inside the shell of a charred SUV are likely the result of drug cartel violence.

The bodies and vehicle were found in the Vekol Valley, a rugged, mountainous desert area that’s a well-known smuggling corridor for drugs and illegal immigrants headed from Mexico to Phoenix and the U.S. interior.

The bodies were so severely burned that investigators couldn’t even determine their gender or ethnicity. While it remains uncertain whether the victims were from Mexico, the sheriff’s department has notified the Mexican Consulate.

“Given all these indicators, you don’t have to be a homicide detective to add up all this information,” Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu said Saturday.

A Border Patrol agent first spotted the white Ford Expedition driving at around 4:30 a.m, however, the SUV disappeared and federal and local law enforcement were unable to track it down. It is not clear why the vehicle drew attention from authorities in the first place.

At daybreak, an agent spotted tracks leading from Interstate 8 into the desert. The vehicle that left the tracks had apparently launched off the highway, going airborne for a short distance before landing in the desert. The tracks continued on for a couple of miles.

Agents could see the smoldering vehicle from a distance through binoculars.

Equipped with fire extinguishers, they approached the vehicle and found the charred corpses inside – one in the rear passenger seat and four lying in the back cargo compartment. The driver and passenger seats were empty. The sheriff‘s office didn’t say whether they got a look at the person driving the vehicle.

Babeu said investigators will try to determine whether the victims were dead before the SUV was set ablaze or whether they were alive when the fire was started.

“Clearly these people were murdered, but we don’t know the manner of death,” he said.

Babeu also said the extent of the violence, particularly in the western part of the country – roughly 35 miles south of Phoenix – is more evidence that drug cartels are still operating north of the Mexico border.

Read more here.

If an award were given for dumbest comment about America’s illegal immigrant problem, the hands-down winner would be Dayanna Rebolledo. Herself an illegal immigrant, Rebolledo said upon being arrested at a protest in Atlanta in April 2011 that she had risked deportation because she was “tired of seeing undocumented youth being treated like second class citizens.” If Rebolledo were as logical as she is exercised over the nation’s rightful sovereign objection to people sneaking across our borders, she might have realized that you can’t be a second-class citizen without being a citizen—period.

Now Rebolledo’s crown is in jeopardy, thanks to the rise of a new immigrants’ rights advocacy group. It calls itself “Drop the I-Word” and its mission is to persuade Americans not to use the modifier illegal to refer to people on U.S. soil illegally. The organization claims the term is a “racially charged slur used to dehumanize and discriminate against immigrants and people of color regardless of migratory status.” They further claim that the term has “fueled violence” and suggests a host of other more polite (“more accurate” in the parlance of DtI-W) replacement terms. These include “undocumented immigrants,” “unauthorized immigrants,” and “NAFTA refugee.”

It’s hard to know where to begin with statements this loony. People willing to wade through a nasty soup teeming with fecal coliform, E. coli, and other pathogenic goodies are worried about dehumanizing words?

Maybe the DtI-W folks would prefer that the U.S. treat its immigrants to the south the way Mexico treats its own. In Mexico, the Reglamento de la Ley General de Poblacion (General Law on Population) makes it a felony to cross into the country illegally (whoops!—”without documentation”), and the penalties are far graver. Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The penalty includes up to two years in prison—up to 10 years for repeat offenders.

The main problem with DtI-W’s argument is that they don’t have one. A spokesperson for the group appeared on the O’Reilly Factor last night and had nothing to offer beyond the same vague and baseless feel-good claims enumerated two paragraphs up. She speaks at one point of changing “inhumane laws,” but there is nothing inhumane about calling a crime by its name. Not to mention the fact that linguistically neutering the crime of illegal immigration carries the risk that more people—if such a thing is possible—will begin making the journey through that fetid soup.