Quoted Text

No refuge or special treatment for illegals

    It is very difficult to understand the mind-set of protecting the illegal immigrants in the United States. I stress the word illegal, because there is a difference between legal and illegal.
    This once-great country that we live in was built by immigrants who came here wanting to become citizens, learn the language, work, provide for their families, and have a good, productive, simple life. They were too proud to seek handouts, freebies or anything else that the welfare state would provide. They understood that it was a privilege to be able to come to the United States and become a productive citizen. The idea was to contribute to making this country the best in the world, not to enter illegally and become a burden on society.
    As citizens of the United States, we are regularly asked for some form of identification, whether to purchase alcohol, apply for a license, or if asked by a police officer when driving a car. This is routinely done on a daily basis to ordinary citizens without protest or objection; it is a way of life.
    The difficult part to understand is why there is so much opposition to police being able to ask for documentation when questionable circumstances arise. If this is allowed to happen, we lose control of our country, security and sovereignty.
    I don’t think the average person has any objection to anyone coming to the United States to become a legal citizen, but nobody should be here illegally and undocumented and expect special treatment not granted to legal citizens of this country.
    Finally, this whole immigration issue can be solved very easily if the United States simply adopted the immigration laws of Mexico. Anyone not familiar with them should take the time to look them up and you will be very surprised at the conditions, requirements and penalties for people entering Mexico illegally. The Mexican government is very quick to protest any crackdown on illegal immigrants in this country. However, maybe they should spend the time cleaning up their own country so their citizens actually want to stay there.

    JAMES RETAJCZYK
    Princetown

Quoted Text

Governor Jan Brewer
As you know, the Obama Administration and Secretary Clinton submitted SB1070 to the United Nations Council on Human Rights so it can be "reviewed" by foreign countries like Cuba and Libya. The attached link lists all the countries that serve on the UN Council who will be reviewing SB1070. This is truly internationalism run amok and unconstitutional. I will fight any efforts by the State Department and the UN to interfere with the duly enacted laws of our state according to the US Constitution.

Quoted Text

Feds obligated to handle immigration, not states

    One of America’s greatest strengths has always been immigrants from Europe, Asia and other areas bringing their skills and brain power to this country.
    Most Americans can trace their ancestry to foreign countries. This legal immigration was accomplished when people desiring to enter the country and become American citizens were processed by federal authorities in such centers as Ellis Island. It was not an uncontrolled hoard of aliens fl ooding across our southern border, along with drugs and God knows what else.
    This is not a task for individual states or vigilantes, but is a federal responsibility. But what happens when the federal government can’t or won’t control this illegal immigration? Then states such as Arizona take it upon themselves to pass their own laws. This is unfortunate and unfair to the large Hispanic population living in the United States legally.
    Washington has failed miserably to solve this problem: The laws are on the books, they must be enforced. Anyone wishing to enter the United States must obey the laws [and] enter legally through ports of entry. They must enter the system, pay their taxes and eventually become American citizens. We cannot continue to allow 10 million or more aliens to wander around the country.
    Wake up, Washington, if the border patrol needs more help, then bring the National Guard home from foreign wars so they can patrol our national borders.

    BILL WRAGG
    Scotia

Quoted Text

In a new twist in the fight over Arizona’s immigration law, Republican Gov. Jan Brewer on Tuesday asked a federal court to disallow foreign governments from joining the U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit to overturn the law.

The move comes in response to a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling issued Monday, allowing nearly a dozen Latin American countries — Mexico, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru and Chile — to submit friend-of-the-court briefs in Justice’s challenge to SB 1070, which Brewer signed into law in April and is considered one of the nation’s toughest immigration-enforcement measures.

“As do many citizens, I find it incredibly offensive that these foreign governments are using our court system to meddle in a domestic legal dispute and to oppose the rule of law,” the Republican governor said in a statement shortly after the state’s motion was filed Tuesday evening.

“What’s even more offensive is that this effort has been supported by the U.S. Department of Justice. American sovereignty begins in the U.S. Constitution and at the border,” she added. “I am confident the 9th Circuit will do the right thing and recognize foreign interference in U.S. legal proceedings and allow the State of Arizona to respond to their brief.”

Brewer and her supporters have said the state law is necessary because the federal government has failed to protect the border and enforce immigration laws. But the Justice Department — with strong backing from President Barack Obama — sued to block the Arizona law on constitutional grounds.

Responding to the suit, a federal judge in July put some of the most contested parts of the law on hold, including a provision that requires police officers to check the immigration status of individuals they stop for other offenses if there is “reasonable suspicion” they are in the country illegally.

Brewer, who has vowed to take the case to the Supreme Court, appealed the decision to the 9th Circuit Court, which will begin hearing arguments in San Francisco on Nov. 1, one day before the midterm elections.

The Arizona law is a top political issue nationally. Cities from San Francisco and Seattle to Baltimore have joined a friend of the court brief opposing the Arizona law, while 11 states — including Texas, Florida and Nebraska — filed an amicus brief backing the law.

In July, more than 80 Republican members of Congress signed their names to an amicus brief filed by the conservative Immigration Reform Caucus. They included Sens. Jim DeMint of South Carolina, David Vitter of Louisiana and John Barrasso of Wyoming, and Reps. Lamar Smith of Texas, Steve King of Iowa and Trent Franks of Arizona.

Brewer’s motion should resonate among conservative legal scholars worried about giving foreign legal systems a voice in American jurisprudence. These concerns are a reaction to a school of legal thought arguing that American judges should look to foreign laws and courts for assistance in interpreting the U.S. Constitution, particularly in regard to basic human rights issues. Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy is arguably the leading spokesperson for this approach, as noted in a 2005 New Yorker profile.

The state of Arizona’s motion could also strike a chord with those on the right who are convinced that President Barack Obama (and Bill Clinton before him) want to make U.S. laws subordinate to international courts, particularly the International Criminal Court in The Hague. Under Clinton, the United States signed a treaty to join the court weeks before leaving office in January 2001, though the Senate never ratified his action. Months later, President George W. Bush pulled the United States out of the treaty, saying he worried foreign governments would try to prosecute U.S. troops for alleged war crimes.

Quoted from Shadow

Is this the beginning of Global Governance where our Constitution means nothing and the world will decide if what we do is proper. Our DOJ should be investigated for allowing this to happen.

Quoted Text

Federal court overturns part of Arizona voting ID law
By the CNN Wire Staff

(CNN) -- A federal appeals court has ruled against an Arizona law that requires residents to prove their U.S. citizenship to register to vote, but upheld a part of the same law that mandates residents to show identification before voting.

The decision made by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco on Tuesday was part of an ongoing court battle surrounding Arizona's Proposition 200.

Arizona passed the law in 2004, prompting legal challenges.

Arizona's Gov. Jan Brewer and Secretary of State Ken Bennett blasted the court's decision Tuesday in a joint statement.

"The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down a simple, common sense protection approved by Arizona voters requiring that all individuals provide evidence of U.S. citizenship prior to registering to vote. This decision is an outrage and a slap in the face to all Arizonans who care about the integrity of their elections," the statement said..................>>>>...........................>>>>...............http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/10/27/arizona.immigration.law/index.html?hpt=T2