After an initial grace period in which most Americans were willing to give a new president the benefit of the doubt, what this nation has steadily watched is a man and an administration almost exclusively governing against the will of the people. While the crux of his predecessors low approval ratings were in fighting an ‘unpopular war,’ President Obama is watching his own approval rating plunge due to an unpopular, well, everything else. His record has been so blatantly in contrast to the will of this nation, that it could very nearly be defined as anti-American.
The latest example of this can be seen in the U.S. Justice Department’s decision to fight the Arizona immigration law through the courts; a law that 59% of U.S. voters would like to see in their very own state. Similar findings demonstrate that prior to this week’s ruling, 56% opposed the decision to challenge the legality of the law in the first place.
This certainly hasn’t been the only example of the Obama administration fighting hard to usurp the voice of the people. It is almost as if White House briefings indicate the mood of the country, and the president subsequently instructs his staff to move in the opposite direction.
Observe…
•The most obvious example of this has been the force-feeding of the health care reform bill down the collective throats of a nation. With the vote looming in mid-March, the measure was opposed by likely voters by a wide margin, 54-41%. Worse, the respondents who felt the strongest toward the bill were overwhelmingly in opposition. 45% strongly opposed, compared to 26% who strongly favored the plan.
•It is the first victory touted by the Obama administration, it is the topic of his current ‘summer of recovery’ tour, and it was (and remains) a big mistake according to Americans. Just two weeks prior to signing his $787 billion stimulus bill into law, two separate polls showed citizens beginning to question the wasteful government spending plan. It was opposed 43-37%, but that didn’t stop the president and his cohorts from pursuing their economic agenda at the people’s expense. Fortunately for the unemployed, as Obama promised, the unemployment rate stayed below 8% and, er … well, never mind.
•In response to the oil spill crisis in the Gulf of Mexico, Obama issued a ban on deepwater oil drilling, a policy that nearly three quarters of Americans oppose. Because the opposition to this is so massive, the administration apparently views it as a policy more-so in need of passage, issuing two moratoriums on deepwater drilling – a move that fellow Democrat Mary Landrieu claimed could “cost more jobs than the spill itself.” Perhaps the ‘summer of recovery’ doesn’t apply to the gulf coast.
•Another result of the oil disaster has been the administration’s expressed desire to move forward on the so-called cap-and-trade legislation. The legislation, an attempt to limit the total carbon dioxide emissions allowed to be released into the environment, while also imposing a massive tax burden on the economy, is opposed by 70% of Americans.
Showing posts with label Arizona Iced Tea Arizona immigration law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Arizona Iced Tea Arizona immigration law. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Monday, August 2, 2010
Arizona sheriff: “Our own government has become our enemy and is taking us to court at a time when we need help”
Pinal County (Ariz.) Sheriff Paul Babeu is hopping mad at the federal government.
Babeu told CNSNews.com that rather than help law enforcement in Arizona stop the hundreds of thousands of people who come into the United States illegally, the federal government is targeting the state and its law enforcement personnel.
“What’s very troubling is the fact that at a time when we in law enforcement and our state need help from the federal government, instead of sending help they put up billboard-size signs warning our citizens to stay out of the desert in my county because of dangerous drug and human smuggling and weapons and bandits and all these other things and then, behind that, they drag us into court with the ACLU,” Babeu said.
The sheriff was referring to the law suits filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and the U.S. Department of Justice challenging the state’s new immigration law.
“So who has partnered with the ACLU?” Babeu said in a telephone interview with CNSNews.com. “It’s the president and (Attorney General) Eric Holder himself. And that’s simply outrageous.”
(snip)
“Our own government has become our enemy and is taking us to court at a time when we need help,” Babeu said.
Babeu told CNSNews.com that rather than help law enforcement in Arizona stop the hundreds of thousands of people who come into the United States illegally, the federal government is targeting the state and its law enforcement personnel.
“What’s very troubling is the fact that at a time when we in law enforcement and our state need help from the federal government, instead of sending help they put up billboard-size signs warning our citizens to stay out of the desert in my county because of dangerous drug and human smuggling and weapons and bandits and all these other things and then, behind that, they drag us into court with the ACLU,” Babeu said.
The sheriff was referring to the law suits filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and the U.S. Department of Justice challenging the state’s new immigration law.
“So who has partnered with the ACLU?” Babeu said in a telephone interview with CNSNews.com. “It’s the president and (Attorney General) Eric Holder himself. And that’s simply outrageous.”
(snip)
“Our own government has become our enemy and is taking us to court at a time when we need help,” Babeu said.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Andy McCarthy: judicial decision on Arizona law is "specious"
On a quick read, the federal court's issuance of a temporary injunction against enforcement of the major provisions of the Arizona immigration law appears specious.
In essence, Judge Susan Bolton bought the Justice Department's preemption argument — i.e., the claim that the federal government has broad and exclusive authority to regulate immigration, and therefore that any state measure that is inconsistent with federal law is invalid. The Arizona law is completely consistent with federal law. The judge, however, twisted to concept of federal law into federal enforcement practices (or, as it happens, lack thereof). In effect, the court is saying that if the feds refuse to enforce the law the states can't do it either because doing so would transgress the federal policy of non-enforcement ... which is nuts.
The judge also employs a cute bit of sleight-of-hand. She repeatedly invokes a 1941 case, Hines v. Davidowitz, in which the Supreme Court struck down a state alien-registration statute. In Hines, the high court reasoned that the federal government had traditionally followed a policy of not treating aliens as "a thing apart," and that Congress had therefore "manifested a purpose ... to protect the liberties of law-abiding aliens through one uniform national system" that would not unduly subject them to "inquisitorial practices and police surveillance." But the Arizona law is not directed at law-abiding aliens in order to identify them as foreigners and subject them, on that basis, to police attention. It is directed at arrested aliens who are in custody because they have violated the law. And it is not requiring them to register with the state; it is requiring proof that they have properly registered with the federal government — something a sensible federal government would want to encourage.
Judge Bolton proceeds from this misapplication of Hines to the absurd conclusion that Arizona can't ask the federal government for verification of the immigration status of arrestees — even though federal law prohibits the said arrestees from being in the country unless they have legal status — because that would tremendously burden the feds, which in turn would make the arrestees wait while their status is being checked, which would result in the alien arrestees being treated like "a thing apart."
In essence, Judge Susan Bolton bought the Justice Department's preemption argument — i.e., the claim that the federal government has broad and exclusive authority to regulate immigration, and therefore that any state measure that is inconsistent with federal law is invalid. The Arizona law is completely consistent with federal law. The judge, however, twisted to concept of federal law into federal enforcement practices (or, as it happens, lack thereof). In effect, the court is saying that if the feds refuse to enforce the law the states can't do it either because doing so would transgress the federal policy of non-enforcement ... which is nuts.
The judge also employs a cute bit of sleight-of-hand. She repeatedly invokes a 1941 case, Hines v. Davidowitz, in which the Supreme Court struck down a state alien-registration statute. In Hines, the high court reasoned that the federal government had traditionally followed a policy of not treating aliens as "a thing apart," and that Congress had therefore "manifested a purpose ... to protect the liberties of law-abiding aliens through one uniform national system" that would not unduly subject them to "inquisitorial practices and police surveillance." But the Arizona law is not directed at law-abiding aliens in order to identify them as foreigners and subject them, on that basis, to police attention. It is directed at arrested aliens who are in custody because they have violated the law. And it is not requiring them to register with the state; it is requiring proof that they have properly registered with the federal government — something a sensible federal government would want to encourage.
Judge Bolton proceeds from this misapplication of Hines to the absurd conclusion that Arizona can't ask the federal government for verification of the immigration status of arrestees — even though federal law prohibits the said arrestees from being in the country unless they have legal status — because that would tremendously burden the feds, which in turn would make the arrestees wait while their status is being checked, which would result in the alien arrestees being treated like "a thing apart."
Monday, July 26, 2010
No wonder the feds are desperate to nullify Arizona's new immigration law; it's working even before it takes effect
PHOENIX, July 25 (Reuters) - Nicaraguan mother Lorena Aguilar hawks a television set and a few clothes on the baking sidewalk outside her west Phoenix apartment block.
A few paces up the street, her undocumented Mexican neighbor Wendi Villasenor touts a kitchen table, some chairs and a few dishes as her family scrambles to get out of Arizona ahead of a looming crackdown on illegal immigrants.
"Everyone is selling up the little they have and leaving," said Villasenor, 31, who is headed for Pennsylvania. "We have no alternative. They have us cornered."
The two women are among scores of illegal immigrant families across Phoenix hauling the contents of their homes into the yard this weekend as they rush to sell up and get out before the state law takes effect on Thursday.
The law, the toughest imposed by any U.S. state to curb illegal immigration, seeks to drive more than 400,000 undocumented day laborers, landscapers, house cleaners, chambermaids and other workers out of Arizona, which borders Mexico.
It makes being an illegal immigrant a state crime and requires state and local police, during lawful contact, to investigate the status of anyone they reasonably suspect of being an illegal immigrant.
The U.S. government estimates 100,000 unauthorized migrants left Arizona after the state passed an employer sanctions law three years ago requiring companies to verify workers' status using a federal computer system. There are no figures for the number who have left since the new law passed in April.
Some are heading back to Mexico or to neighboring states. Others are staying put and taking their chances.
In a sign of a gathering exodus, Mexican businesses from grocers and butcher shops to diners and beauty salons have shut their doors in recent weeks as their owners and clients leave.
On Saturday and Sunday, Reuters counted dozens of impromptu yard sales in Latino neighborhoods in central and west Phoenix/
"They wanted to drive Hispanics out of Arizona and they have succeeded even before the law even comes into effect," said Aguilar, 28, a mother of three young children who was also offering a few cherished pictures and a stereo at one of five sales on the same block.
A few paces up the street, her undocumented Mexican neighbor Wendi Villasenor touts a kitchen table, some chairs and a few dishes as her family scrambles to get out of Arizona ahead of a looming crackdown on illegal immigrants.
"Everyone is selling up the little they have and leaving," said Villasenor, 31, who is headed for Pennsylvania. "We have no alternative. They have us cornered."
The two women are among scores of illegal immigrant families across Phoenix hauling the contents of their homes into the yard this weekend as they rush to sell up and get out before the state law takes effect on Thursday.
The law, the toughest imposed by any U.S. state to curb illegal immigration, seeks to drive more than 400,000 undocumented day laborers, landscapers, house cleaners, chambermaids and other workers out of Arizona, which borders Mexico.
It makes being an illegal immigrant a state crime and requires state and local police, during lawful contact, to investigate the status of anyone they reasonably suspect of being an illegal immigrant.
The U.S. government estimates 100,000 unauthorized migrants left Arizona after the state passed an employer sanctions law three years ago requiring companies to verify workers' status using a federal computer system. There are no figures for the number who have left since the new law passed in April.
Some are heading back to Mexico or to neighboring states. Others are staying put and taking their chances.
In a sign of a gathering exodus, Mexican businesses from grocers and butcher shops to diners and beauty salons have shut their doors in recent weeks as their owners and clients leave.
On Saturday and Sunday, Reuters counted dozens of impromptu yard sales in Latino neighborhoods in central and west Phoenix/
"They wanted to drive Hispanics out of Arizona and they have succeeded even before the law even comes into effect," said Aguilar, 28, a mother of three young children who was also offering a few cherished pictures and a stereo at one of five sales on the same block.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
28% of Arizonans think Obama is doing a good job, a 45% drop
PHOENIX - Most Arizonans no longer think Barack Obama is doing a decent job as president.
A new Behavior Research Poll released Sunday shows that nearly four out of every 10 Arizonans now rate Obama's performance as poor or very poor. That's up 5 points from the same survey taken in January.
What's different is that the number of those who think he's doing an excellent or good job has plummeted.
Three months after taking office, fully 51 percent of Arizonans gave Obama positive ratings, even though the state went for hometown favorite John McCain in the 2008 election.
A year into office, that had slid to 40 percent. But by the time pollster Earl de Berge conducted this latest survey, between June 30 and July 11, only 28 percent of Arizonans were willing to say they like the job he's doing.
According to de Berge, much of that slide tracks with a separate poll he does asking Arizonans about their views on the economy and current job market conditions.
"As might be expected, those who think the job market is static or worsening have the least favorable view of his performance," de Berge said.
But the survey also was taken about the time it became clear that the Department of Justice, asked to look at Arizona's new immigration law, intended to file suit. In fact, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in an interview with a television station in Ecuador, spilled the beans early in June.
That all became official when the Obama administration went to federal court on July 6 - right in the middle of the polling - asking a judge to block the statute from taking effect as scheduled July 26.
The law, which spells out when police have to ask those they have stopped about their immigration status, is popular in Arizona, with every single survey showing it's backed by more than half of residents.
Obama maintains his popularity with Democrats, 52 percent of whom still have a positive assessment of his work. Still, that's down from 85 percent in April 2009.
A new Behavior Research Poll released Sunday shows that nearly four out of every 10 Arizonans now rate Obama's performance as poor or very poor. That's up 5 points from the same survey taken in January.
What's different is that the number of those who think he's doing an excellent or good job has plummeted.
Three months after taking office, fully 51 percent of Arizonans gave Obama positive ratings, even though the state went for hometown favorite John McCain in the 2008 election.
A year into office, that had slid to 40 percent. But by the time pollster Earl de Berge conducted this latest survey, between June 30 and July 11, only 28 percent of Arizonans were willing to say they like the job he's doing.
According to de Berge, much of that slide tracks with a separate poll he does asking Arizonans about their views on the economy and current job market conditions.
"As might be expected, those who think the job market is static or worsening have the least favorable view of his performance," de Berge said.
But the survey also was taken about the time it became clear that the Department of Justice, asked to look at Arizona's new immigration law, intended to file suit. In fact, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in an interview with a television station in Ecuador, spilled the beans early in June.
That all became official when the Obama administration went to federal court on July 6 - right in the middle of the polling - asking a judge to block the statute from taking effect as scheduled July 26.
The law, which spells out when police have to ask those they have stopped about their immigration status, is popular in Arizona, with every single survey showing it's backed by more than half of residents.
Obama maintains his popularity with Democrats, 52 percent of whom still have a positive assessment of his work. Still, that's down from 85 percent in April 2009.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
28% of voters, 73% of political class, applaud suit against Arizona; the voters will decide the fate of the political class
Voters by a two-to-one margin oppose the U.S. Justice Department’s decision to challenge the legality of Arizona’s new immigration law in federal court. Sixty-one percent (61%), in fact, favor passage of a law like Arizona’s in their own state, up six points from two months ago.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 28% of voters agree that the Justice Department should challenge the state law. Fifty-six percent (56%) disagree and another 16% are not sure.
These findings are unchanged from late May when the possibility of such a challenge first surfaced in news reports.
Eighty-six percent (86%) of all Likely Voters say the immigration issue is at least somewhat important to how they will vote for Congress this November, with 55% who say it is Very Important.
Those who say the issue is Very Important to their vote are even more likely to oppose the government action. Seventy-two percent (72%) of those who rate the immigration issue Very Important to their vote disagree with the Justice Department challenge.
On the other hand, the nation’s Political Class thinks the legal challenge is a great idea. Seventy-three percent (73%) of Political Class voters agree with the Justice Department decision to challenge the Arizona law, while 67% of Mainstream voters disagree and oppose that challenge.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 28% of voters agree that the Justice Department should challenge the state law. Fifty-six percent (56%) disagree and another 16% are not sure.
These findings are unchanged from late May when the possibility of such a challenge first surfaced in news reports.
Eighty-six percent (86%) of all Likely Voters say the immigration issue is at least somewhat important to how they will vote for Congress this November, with 55% who say it is Very Important.
Those who say the issue is Very Important to their vote are even more likely to oppose the government action. Seventy-two percent (72%) of those who rate the immigration issue Very Important to their vote disagree with the Justice Department challenge.
On the other hand, the nation’s Political Class thinks the legal challenge is a great idea. Seventy-three percent (73%) of Political Class voters agree with the Justice Department decision to challenge the Arizona law, while 67% of Mainstream voters disagree and oppose that challenge.
Suing Arizona, Obama again governs against the people's will
The Obama administration is getting quite the reputation for bucking the wishes of the people. From pushing through an unpopular health care bill to imposing a moratorium on offshore drilling that's costing the already-suffering gulf region precious jobs, it has refused to back down when it comes to the will of the masses.
Now, President Obama's Justice Department has decided to sue the State of Arizona over its new law targeting illegal aliens, when a majority of the public favors the legislation, leaving many to wonder if the increasingly detached White House has gone too far.
The administration says its lawsuit is all about the law; Arizona, it says, is trying to enforce immigration statutes - which is the federal government's job alone.
It's hard to believe from a President who has already shaken the finger of moral disapproval at the bill.
Rather, anyone with basic political sense can see the move for what it is: a purely political maneuver intended to invigorate Hispanic voters - a key piece of the Democratic base - in time for the November elections. Obama is hoping that a bloody judicial showdown on immigration will translate into high turnout for Democrats. And that could be enough to sustain Democratic majorities in Congress.
Don't count on it. For the strategy to work, registered Hispanic voters would need to turn out in droves over what essentially boils down to a nuanced debate between federal versus states' rights.
Now, President Obama's Justice Department has decided to sue the State of Arizona over its new law targeting illegal aliens, when a majority of the public favors the legislation, leaving many to wonder if the increasingly detached White House has gone too far.
The administration says its lawsuit is all about the law; Arizona, it says, is trying to enforce immigration statutes - which is the federal government's job alone.
It's hard to believe from a President who has already shaken the finger of moral disapproval at the bill.
Rather, anyone with basic political sense can see the move for what it is: a purely political maneuver intended to invigorate Hispanic voters - a key piece of the Democratic base - in time for the November elections. Obama is hoping that a bloody judicial showdown on immigration will translate into high turnout for Democrats. And that could be enough to sustain Democratic majorities in Congress.
Don't count on it. For the strategy to work, registered Hispanic voters would need to turn out in droves over what essentially boils down to a nuanced debate between federal versus states' rights.
Poll: 61% of Americans favor Arizona-style immigration law
Voters by a two-to-one margin oppose the U.S. Justice Department’s decision to challenge the legality of Arizona’s new immigration law in federal court. Sixty-one percent (61%), in fact, favor passage of a law like Arizona’s in their own state, up six points from two months ago.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 28% of voters agree that the Justice Department should challenge the state law. Fifty-six percent (56%) disagree and another 16% are not sure.
These findings are unchanged from late May when the possibility of such a challenge first surfaced in news reports.
Eighty-six percent (86%) of all Likely Voters say the immigration issue is at least somewhat important to how they will vote for Congress this November, with 55% who say it is Very Important.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 28% of voters agree that the Justice Department should challenge the state law. Fifty-six percent (56%) disagree and another 16% are not sure.
These findings are unchanged from late May when the possibility of such a challenge first surfaced in news reports.
Eighty-six percent (86%) of all Likely Voters say the immigration issue is at least somewhat important to how they will vote for Congress this November, with 55% who say it is Very Important.
While Obama tries to gain hispanic votes by fighting Arizona's immigration law, 62% of Colorado's hispanics support Arizona
Some Democrats, even in Arizona, are fearing an election backlash over immigration, as President Obama sues Arizona over its new immigration enforcement law and pushes Congress to pass a comprehensive immigration overhaul.
"My concern is that the federal government is suing the state of Arizona, ironically, over the ability to enforce immigration laws -- where if the federal government had been doing its job over the years, we wouldn't be in this situation in the first place," Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., said.
Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, the Democratic nominee for governor, urged the Obama administration to back off Arizona's new law, which allows state and local authorities to ask people for immigration documents during unrelated enforcement encounters – such as traffic stops.
The president appears to be out of step with public opinion on immigration. The latest Fox News Opinion Dynamics poll shows 2-to-1 support nationwide for Arizona's law, including 73 percent of Republicans, 57 percent of independents and one out of three Democrats.
On immigration, the GOP accuses Democrats of ignoring a border crisis and selling out national security to cynically court Latino votes.
(snip)
...in Colorado, a recent Denver Post poll said 62 percent of Colorado Hispanics favor a law like Arizona's. The state's Republican gubernatorial front runner Scott McInnis supports it. But Democratic gubernatorial candidate John Hickenlooper, the mayor of Denver, opposes it, putting himself at odds with those Colorado Latinos.
"My concern is that the federal government is suing the state of Arizona, ironically, over the ability to enforce immigration laws -- where if the federal government had been doing its job over the years, we wouldn't be in this situation in the first place," Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., said.
Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, the Democratic nominee for governor, urged the Obama administration to back off Arizona's new law, which allows state and local authorities to ask people for immigration documents during unrelated enforcement encounters – such as traffic stops.
The president appears to be out of step with public opinion on immigration. The latest Fox News Opinion Dynamics poll shows 2-to-1 support nationwide for Arizona's law, including 73 percent of Republicans, 57 percent of independents and one out of three Democrats.
On immigration, the GOP accuses Democrats of ignoring a border crisis and selling out national security to cynically court Latino votes.
(snip)
...in Colorado, a recent Denver Post poll said 62 percent of Colorado Hispanics favor a law like Arizona's. The state's Republican gubernatorial front runner Scott McInnis supports it. But Democratic gubernatorial candidate John Hickenlooper, the mayor of Denver, opposes it, putting himself at odds with those Colorado Latinos.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Arizona is the new Rhode Island, which already deports illegals
SCITUATE, R.I. — Rhode Island State Trooper Nuno Vasconcelos was patrolling Interstate 95 a few months ago when he came upon a two-car accident in heavy traffic. The trooper pulled up, stepped out of his cruiser, and asked one of the drivers for his license.
The man said he did not have a license, and under questioning, confessed that he was here illegally from Guatemala.
If the accident had happened 15 miles north in Massachusetts, the man would probably have been arrested for driving without a license, which carries a fine of up to $1,000 and 10 days in jail, then released pending an appearance in district court.
But in Rhode Island, illegal immigrants face a far greater penalty: deportation.
From Woonsocket to Westerly, the troopers patrolling the nation’s smallest state are reporting all illegal immigrants they encounter, even on routine stops such as speeding, to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, known as ICE.
“There are police chiefs throughout New England who hide from the issue . . . and I’m not hiding from it,’’ said Colonel Brendan P. Doherty, the towering commander of the Rhode Island State Police. “I would feel that I’m derelict in my duties to look the other way.’’
Rhode Island’s collaboration with federal immigration authorities is controversial; critics say the practice increases racial profiling and makes immigrants afraid to help police solve crimes.
But it is a practice that Governor Deval Patrick’s opponents in the governor’s race are urging Massachusetts to revive. The Patrick administration has staunchly opposed having state troopers enforce immigration laws, and shortly after he took office in 2007, the governor rescinded a pact by his predecessor, Mitt Romney, to assign 30 troopers to the so-called federal 287(g) program, which trains local police to enforce federal immigration law.
The man said he did not have a license, and under questioning, confessed that he was here illegally from Guatemala.
If the accident had happened 15 miles north in Massachusetts, the man would probably have been arrested for driving without a license, which carries a fine of up to $1,000 and 10 days in jail, then released pending an appearance in district court.
But in Rhode Island, illegal immigrants face a far greater penalty: deportation.
From Woonsocket to Westerly, the troopers patrolling the nation’s smallest state are reporting all illegal immigrants they encounter, even on routine stops such as speeding, to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, known as ICE.
“There are police chiefs throughout New England who hide from the issue . . . and I’m not hiding from it,’’ said Colonel Brendan P. Doherty, the towering commander of the Rhode Island State Police. “I would feel that I’m derelict in my duties to look the other way.’’
Rhode Island’s collaboration with federal immigration authorities is controversial; critics say the practice increases racial profiling and makes immigrants afraid to help police solve crimes.
But it is a practice that Governor Deval Patrick’s opponents in the governor’s race are urging Massachusetts to revive. The Patrick administration has staunchly opposed having state troopers enforce immigration laws, and shortly after he took office in 2007, the governor rescinded a pact by his predecessor, Mitt Romney, to assign 30 troopers to the so-called federal 287(g) program, which trains local police to enforce federal immigration law.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Arizona governor rides popularity of tough new immigration law
Only nine months ago, politically speaking, Jan Brewer had flatlined; the Arizona governor's approval rating was at 22 percent. And as recently as three months ago, a Rasmussen poll of likely voters showed her trailing her likely opponent, state Attorney General Terry Goddard, by nearly 10 points in the runup to November's gubernatorial election.
But voters in the Grand Canyon State have been singing a different tune since April, when Brewer signed SB1070 -- the state immigration law that has become the focus of a national controversy.
Since then, Brewer's approval ratings have skyrocketed, catapulting her to the top of the polls in the gubernatorial race and launching what may be the biggest political comeback of the year in the U.S.
Just one month after signing the law, Brewer had taken a 13-point lead over Goddard, with 52 percent of likely voters backing her candidacy, according to Rasmussen Reports.
It's a remarkable turnaround for Brewer, who assumed office last year when Gov. Janet Napolitano resigned to become President Obama's secretary of homeland security. Brewer has pulled far ahead in Arizona's Aug. 24 Republican primary race, and she has emerged virtually overnight as a national figure in the debate over border security and illegal immigration.
Matt Roberts, communications director at Arizona Republican Party headquarters in Phoenix, says Brewer's comeback is all the more impressive considering how far behind she was when she took office.
"Our former governor really left our current governor in a bad spot," Roberts said. "The voters hold elected officials accountable, and maybe her polling figures that have gone up are due to the fact that things are going better."
In a second legislative victory last month, Brewer rallied voters to pass a temporary sales-tax increase to help combat the state's budget crisis. She also delighted conservatives earlier this spring when she circumvented Goddard's office in filing a lawsuit that challenges the president's health care law.
But the signature issue in Brewer's surge is Arizona's immigration law, which makes it illegal to be an undocumented immigrant in the state and empowers law enforcement officials to question people they suspect are illegal immigrants about their status. Seventy-one percent of voters in the state support the law, and 63 percent say immigration is "very important" in determining how they will vote. Goddard has said he opposes the law, and Brewer has now hired outside counsel to defend her and the state against impending lawsuits.
But voters in the Grand Canyon State have been singing a different tune since April, when Brewer signed SB1070 -- the state immigration law that has become the focus of a national controversy.
Since then, Brewer's approval ratings have skyrocketed, catapulting her to the top of the polls in the gubernatorial race and launching what may be the biggest political comeback of the year in the U.S.
Just one month after signing the law, Brewer had taken a 13-point lead over Goddard, with 52 percent of likely voters backing her candidacy, according to Rasmussen Reports.
It's a remarkable turnaround for Brewer, who assumed office last year when Gov. Janet Napolitano resigned to become President Obama's secretary of homeland security. Brewer has pulled far ahead in Arizona's Aug. 24 Republican primary race, and she has emerged virtually overnight as a national figure in the debate over border security and illegal immigration.
Matt Roberts, communications director at Arizona Republican Party headquarters in Phoenix, says Brewer's comeback is all the more impressive considering how far behind she was when she took office.
"Our former governor really left our current governor in a bad spot," Roberts said. "The voters hold elected officials accountable, and maybe her polling figures that have gone up are due to the fact that things are going better."
In a second legislative victory last month, Brewer rallied voters to pass a temporary sales-tax increase to help combat the state's budget crisis. She also delighted conservatives earlier this spring when she circumvented Goddard's office in filing a lawsuit that challenges the president's health care law.
But the signature issue in Brewer's surge is Arizona's immigration law, which makes it illegal to be an undocumented immigrant in the state and empowers law enforcement officials to question people they suspect are illegal immigrants about their status. Seventy-one percent of voters in the state support the law, and 63 percent say immigration is "very important" in determining how they will vote. Goddard has said he opposes the law, and Brewer has now hired outside counsel to defend her and the state against impending lawsuits.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Posturing leftist school bureaucrats pretend to save lives by blocking trip to Arizona by Chicago girls basketball team
Here in Chicago, we have two $100 million-plus baseball teams that can't hit, and a hockey team on the brink of its first Stanley Cup title in nearly 50 years. But the team that's been in the headlines is one that isn't even allowed to play. Of course, I'm referring to the girl's high school basketball team from north suburban Highland Park which won’t be competing in a tournament in Arizona in December because school officials claim that "students' safety or liberty might be placed at risk because of state immigration law."
The school is obviously making a political statement but is trying to defend itself by hiding behind the student's safety ruse. When the story first broke on Wednesday, District 113 Assistant Superintendent Suzan Hebson told the Chicago Tribune that the trip to Arizona "would not be aligned with our beliefs and values." As the father of two young boys who will soon be enrolled in public schools, this is one of the more chilling statements that I've read in a newspaper in a very long time. Pardon me, Madame Hebson, but how are you so certain that all of your students and their families share your politically correct "beliefs and values?"
Someone in the school district obviously recognized that her statement made bad copy, and by Thursday the bogus "it's not political, it's the safety of the students" spin was rolled out in full force. In order to buy this safety argument you'd need to swallow the notion that police officers in Arizona are going to be pulling over school buses to ask for papers, bringing paddy wagons to high school sports events, and perhaps even raiding schools themselves. No rational person can honestly believe that this is how Arizona is going to enforce S.B. 1070.
But irrational fear and paranoia are inevitable given the media coverage of the new law.
The school is obviously making a political statement but is trying to defend itself by hiding behind the student's safety ruse. When the story first broke on Wednesday, District 113 Assistant Superintendent Suzan Hebson told the Chicago Tribune that the trip to Arizona "would not be aligned with our beliefs and values." As the father of two young boys who will soon be enrolled in public schools, this is one of the more chilling statements that I've read in a newspaper in a very long time. Pardon me, Madame Hebson, but how are you so certain that all of your students and their families share your politically correct "beliefs and values?"
Someone in the school district obviously recognized that her statement made bad copy, and by Thursday the bogus "it's not political, it's the safety of the students" spin was rolled out in full force. In order to buy this safety argument you'd need to swallow the notion that police officers in Arizona are going to be pulling over school buses to ask for papers, bringing paddy wagons to high school sports events, and perhaps even raiding schools themselves. No rational person can honestly believe that this is how Arizona is going to enforce S.B. 1070.
But irrational fear and paranoia are inevitable given the media coverage of the new law.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
The Arizona Republic looks at the immigration issue, examines John McCain and his accomplices, and takes no prisoners
We need leaders.
The federal government is abdicating its duty on the border.
Arizona politicians are pandering to public fear.
The result is a state law that intimidates Latinos while doing nothing to curb illegal immigration
This represents years of failure. Years of politicians taking the easy way and allowing the debate to descend into chaos.
The Arizona Republic has been calling for comprehensive immigration reform continuously since 2002. For a brief time, our congressional delegation led the nation on this front. But no more.
Now, it seems our elected officials prefer to serve political expediency instead.
Those who failed Arizona:
JAN BREWER was looking out for her political future, not Arizona's best interests, when she signed the anti-immigrant law that ignores Arizona's Latino heritage and creates a backlash that will hurt the state's economic development. The governor's GOP primary race would have been tougher if she'd vetoed the bill, so she ducked her responsibility to the people of Arizona. Now, she gets a bump in the polls, and Arizona gets beat up on the international stage.
JANET NAPOLITANO came down with amnesia after she abandoned her job as governor of Arizona and moved to Washington, D.C., to be Homeland Security secretary. Ensconced in a Democratic administration, she forgot all the arguments she once used to demand that the Bush administration address immigration reform and reimburse Arizona for the costs of the broken border. Put in charge of Obama's effort to craft immigration reform, she couldn't get the thing out of neutral.
JOHN McCAIN, the one-time maverick and former champion of comprehensive immigration reform, also came down with a convenient loss of memory and principle. Facing a primary race against J.D. Hayworth, whose demagoguery on this issue is practiced and predictable, Sen. McCain became a man afraid of his own record. He locked himself behind a door marked "Do not disturb until the border is secure." Here's some straight talk the senator should understand: The border cannot be secured as long as the current irrational border policies remain unchanged.
JON KYL was also brave enough - once upon a time - to work across the aisle for the sake of achieving comprehensive immigration reform. Now, he has linked arms with McCain in stonewalling. There may be little political advantage in helping a Democratic president and Congress achieve what Republicans could not, but Sen. Kyl's role in GOP Senate leadership should not be more important than fixing what's broken in his own state.
J.D. HAYWORTH is the mouth that spewed when it comes to illegal immigration. The former congressman used his seat in the House and his radio show to pound his chest and shout down every attempt to discuss the genuine complexity of this issue. He hasn't changed. Fear and anger are his sidekicks. Self-promotion is his noble steed. His diatribes helped validate a wickedly distorted image of all migrant workers as heinous criminals.
PHIL GORDON lashed out against the law in shrill tones that did not serve his state or city. The Phoenix mayor made a flamboyant call to challenge the new law in court without first consulting the City Council, then vowed to go around his fellow elected city officials when they disagreed with him.
RUSSELL PEARCE probably has done more than anyone in the state to turn this from a complex public-policy discussion into what seems like law sketched on a cocktail napkin. This legislation, his brainchild, shows how a narrow focus on persecuting illegal immigrants blinds him to the consequences of what he is doing. We wonder if state Sen. Pearce even considered rights of legal residents and Latino citizens. Or if he cares how his law introduces real fear into real people's lives.
RAÚL GRIJALVA also fails to see beyond a narrow band of self-interest. As a representative of a heavily Latino district, he faced no political risk in responding to a divisive law with an equally divisive call for a national boycott of Arizona. Grijalva, a U.S. representative, must know that lost convention business will hurt Arizonans who are struggling to keep their jobs in these tough times. For a congressman to call for destruction of his own state's economy is irresponsible and beneath contempt.
JOE ARPAIO and ANDREW THOMAS, a showboat tag team as sheriff and county attorney, were responsible for ratcheting up the heat and dimming any light on this issue. Arpaio's immigration sweeps stirred anti-immigrant sentiment and made "driving while Latino" a suspicious activity. Thomas' decision to use a law aimed at criminal smugglers to prosecute illegal immigrants was a perversion of that law-enforcement tool.
These politicians - Republicans and Democrats - used this issue to bait voters. Voters should get wise and demand leadership and solutions.
Despite the turmoil and passion surrounding this issue, there is a broad consensus that immigration is a federal responsibility and it demands federal action. State laws cannot fix it.
There is also agreement that Arizona suffers disproportionately because of federal border policies, as was seen Friday when a Pinal County sheriff's deputy was ambushed and shot by suspected drug smugglers.
Arizona can no longer afford to tolerate elected officials who show so little interest in solving one of the state's most pressing issues. We need leaders who will push to enact comprehensive reform. We need Arizona leadership - as a delegation all working together -sponsoring and spearheading federal legislation to fix immigration.
Reform must secure the border so that the people entering this country are doing so legally and we know who they are. It must eliminate the access to jobs that migrants are willing to risk their lives to reach. It must include an efficient system to verify worker eligibility and tough sanctions for employers who hire the undocumented.
It must provide a path to legalization that has to be earned by the current undocumented population. If they choose not to earn it, they choose not to be citizens and live in this country.
Reform must create a legal pipeline for future workers that is demand-based and temporary. With a legal framework in place, there will be no reason to be in this country without permission. Foreigners who break our laws will be prosecuted, punished and deported.
Comprehensive reform will make the border safer. When migrant labor is channeled through the legal ports of entry, the Border Patrol can focus on catching drug smugglers and other criminals instead of chasing busboys across the desert.
Real leaders will have the courage to say that. Real leaders are what we need.
Arizona, our time for excuses is over.
The federal government is abdicating its duty on the border.
Arizona politicians are pandering to public fear.
The result is a state law that intimidates Latinos while doing nothing to curb illegal immigration
This represents years of failure. Years of politicians taking the easy way and allowing the debate to descend into chaos.
The Arizona Republic has been calling for comprehensive immigration reform continuously since 2002. For a brief time, our congressional delegation led the nation on this front. But no more.
Now, it seems our elected officials prefer to serve political expediency instead.
Those who failed Arizona:
JAN BREWER was looking out for her political future, not Arizona's best interests, when she signed the anti-immigrant law that ignores Arizona's Latino heritage and creates a backlash that will hurt the state's economic development. The governor's GOP primary race would have been tougher if she'd vetoed the bill, so she ducked her responsibility to the people of Arizona. Now, she gets a bump in the polls, and Arizona gets beat up on the international stage.
JANET NAPOLITANO came down with amnesia after she abandoned her job as governor of Arizona and moved to Washington, D.C., to be Homeland Security secretary. Ensconced in a Democratic administration, she forgot all the arguments she once used to demand that the Bush administration address immigration reform and reimburse Arizona for the costs of the broken border. Put in charge of Obama's effort to craft immigration reform, she couldn't get the thing out of neutral.
JOHN McCAIN, the one-time maverick and former champion of comprehensive immigration reform, also came down with a convenient loss of memory and principle. Facing a primary race against J.D. Hayworth, whose demagoguery on this issue is practiced and predictable, Sen. McCain became a man afraid of his own record. He locked himself behind a door marked "Do not disturb until the border is secure." Here's some straight talk the senator should understand: The border cannot be secured as long as the current irrational border policies remain unchanged.
JON KYL was also brave enough - once upon a time - to work across the aisle for the sake of achieving comprehensive immigration reform. Now, he has linked arms with McCain in stonewalling. There may be little political advantage in helping a Democratic president and Congress achieve what Republicans could not, but Sen. Kyl's role in GOP Senate leadership should not be more important than fixing what's broken in his own state.
J.D. HAYWORTH is the mouth that spewed when it comes to illegal immigration. The former congressman used his seat in the House and his radio show to pound his chest and shout down every attempt to discuss the genuine complexity of this issue. He hasn't changed. Fear and anger are his sidekicks. Self-promotion is his noble steed. His diatribes helped validate a wickedly distorted image of all migrant workers as heinous criminals.
PHIL GORDON lashed out against the law in shrill tones that did not serve his state or city. The Phoenix mayor made a flamboyant call to challenge the new law in court without first consulting the City Council, then vowed to go around his fellow elected city officials when they disagreed with him.
RUSSELL PEARCE probably has done more than anyone in the state to turn this from a complex public-policy discussion into what seems like law sketched on a cocktail napkin. This legislation, his brainchild, shows how a narrow focus on persecuting illegal immigrants blinds him to the consequences of what he is doing. We wonder if state Sen. Pearce even considered rights of legal residents and Latino citizens. Or if he cares how his law introduces real fear into real people's lives.
RAÚL GRIJALVA also fails to see beyond a narrow band of self-interest. As a representative of a heavily Latino district, he faced no political risk in responding to a divisive law with an equally divisive call for a national boycott of Arizona. Grijalva, a U.S. representative, must know that lost convention business will hurt Arizonans who are struggling to keep their jobs in these tough times. For a congressman to call for destruction of his own state's economy is irresponsible and beneath contempt.
JOE ARPAIO and ANDREW THOMAS, a showboat tag team as sheriff and county attorney, were responsible for ratcheting up the heat and dimming any light on this issue. Arpaio's immigration sweeps stirred anti-immigrant sentiment and made "driving while Latino" a suspicious activity. Thomas' decision to use a law aimed at criminal smugglers to prosecute illegal immigrants was a perversion of that law-enforcement tool.
These politicians - Republicans and Democrats - used this issue to bait voters. Voters should get wise and demand leadership and solutions.
Despite the turmoil and passion surrounding this issue, there is a broad consensus that immigration is a federal responsibility and it demands federal action. State laws cannot fix it.
There is also agreement that Arizona suffers disproportionately because of federal border policies, as was seen Friday when a Pinal County sheriff's deputy was ambushed and shot by suspected drug smugglers.
Arizona can no longer afford to tolerate elected officials who show so little interest in solving one of the state's most pressing issues. We need leaders who will push to enact comprehensive reform. We need Arizona leadership - as a delegation all working together -sponsoring and spearheading federal legislation to fix immigration.
Reform must secure the border so that the people entering this country are doing so legally and we know who they are. It must eliminate the access to jobs that migrants are willing to risk their lives to reach. It must include an efficient system to verify worker eligibility and tough sanctions for employers who hire the undocumented.
It must provide a path to legalization that has to be earned by the current undocumented population. If they choose not to earn it, they choose not to be citizens and live in this country.
Reform must create a legal pipeline for future workers that is demand-based and temporary. With a legal framework in place, there will be no reason to be in this country without permission. Foreigners who break our laws will be prosecuted, punished and deported.
Comprehensive reform will make the border safer. When migrant labor is channeled through the legal ports of entry, the Border Patrol can focus on catching drug smugglers and other criminals instead of chasing busboys across the desert.
Real leaders will have the courage to say that. Real leaders are what we need.
Arizona, our time for excuses is over.
Ralph Peters: Narcos are challenging Mexico's government; Arizona is coping with the spillover
South of the border, down Mexico way, a new and savage revolution rages just beyond our inspection lanes. After less than five years of fighting, estimates of the dead have reached 22,000.
The rate of killing accelerates each month. And Washington covers its eyes like a kid at a scary movie. Well, the Mexican narco-insurgency, in which well-armed guerrilla forces confront the authority and presence of the state, is our No. 1 security challenge.
The chaos in northern Mexico has far deeper implications for our country than Islamist terror or even an Iranian nuclear capability (as grim as those threats are).
The rule of law has collapsed from Tijuana on the Pacific's edge to Matamoros and the Gulf of Mexico. Major cities are now "ungoverned spaces," as our diplomats refer tidily to distant trouble spots.
More people now die violently on our southern border than in Somalia, Yemen or even Afghanistan. But Washington doesn't know what to do about Mexico. So Washington does nothing much.
Our ruling class simply doesn't feel the pain. So the DC elite demonizes Arizona's desperate effort to shove the narco-revolution's disorder back across the border. Murdered ranchers, overwhelmed emergency rooms and soaring crime rates in our border states mean less to the White House than a terrorist detainee's claims of abuse. Our governing elite pretends that illegal immigration, torrential crime where illegals cluster, overcrowded prisons, Mexico's narco-insurgency, legal cross-border commerce and the drug trade are separate issues, to be addressed discreetly.
But these issues are all interwoven with the Mexican government's existential crisis. Drug wealth fuels criminal empires. Those narco-empires are now so powerful that they've risen against the state. Human trafficking is a useful sideline for drug lords. And illegal immigration drives crime rates in bankruptcy-threatened US cities and states.
Cross-border trade's the next target.
The rate of killing accelerates each month. And Washington covers its eyes like a kid at a scary movie. Well, the Mexican narco-insurgency, in which well-armed guerrilla forces confront the authority and presence of the state, is our No. 1 security challenge.
The chaos in northern Mexico has far deeper implications for our country than Islamist terror or even an Iranian nuclear capability (as grim as those threats are).
The rule of law has collapsed from Tijuana on the Pacific's edge to Matamoros and the Gulf of Mexico. Major cities are now "ungoverned spaces," as our diplomats refer tidily to distant trouble spots.
More people now die violently on our southern border than in Somalia, Yemen or even Afghanistan. But Washington doesn't know what to do about Mexico. So Washington does nothing much.
Our ruling class simply doesn't feel the pain. So the DC elite demonizes Arizona's desperate effort to shove the narco-revolution's disorder back across the border. Murdered ranchers, overwhelmed emergency rooms and soaring crime rates in our border states mean less to the White House than a terrorist detainee's claims of abuse. Our governing elite pretends that illegal immigration, torrential crime where illegals cluster, overcrowded prisons, Mexico's narco-insurgency, legal cross-border commerce and the drug trade are separate issues, to be addressed discreetly.
But these issues are all interwoven with the Mexican government's existential crisis. Drug wealth fuels criminal empires. Those narco-empires are now so powerful that they've risen against the state. Human trafficking is a useful sideline for drug lords. And illegal immigration drives crime rates in bankruptcy-threatened US cities and states.
Cross-border trade's the next target.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
From NRO's Corner
Some of the Arizona boycotters want people to quit drinking Arizona Iced Tea, even though it's brewed in New York.
Next, they're going to call for a boycott of Rand McNally maps that include depictions of the 48th state.
Next, they're going to call for a boycott of Rand McNally maps that include depictions of the 48th state.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
