Monday's 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision against Arizona's SB 1070 demonstrates the complete contempt that many federal judges have for the Constitution and the democratic process. Unfortunately, judges all too frequently abuse their power to impose their own agenda. The 9th Circuit is widely held as the most activist court in the nation and even ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional.
The decision against SB 1070 went a step farther in that the judges explicitly appealed to their own ideological and political concerns, and went as far as to cite the views of anti-American dictators as a justification for subverting the rule of law.
Justice Richard Paez, who wrote the decision, argued that the law has "created actual foreign policy problems." Among the "problems" he cited was the disapproval of the Mexican government, the United Nations Human Rights commissioners, the government of Bolivia, and the Organization of American States. What he does not mention is that the United Nations commission includes dictatorships such as Cuba and Saudi Arabia. Cuba is also a member of the Organization of American States, as are the socialist dictatorships of Bolivia and Venezuela.
The United States has not had diplomatic relations with Cuba for more than 50 years. In 2008, Bolivian President Evo Morales said that all Latin American nations should expel American ambassadors and cheered on a mob who tried to burn down our embassy. He said, "I don't mind being a permanent nightmare for the United States." Venezuela's dictator Hugo Chavez has spewed so much anti-American rhetoric that even Barack Obama expelled their ambassador just three months ago. Chavez had called Bush the "devil" and Obama "Satan."
The idea that the SB 1070 will affect our relationships with this country is preposterous.
Judge John Noonan wrote a concurring opinion against Arizona in which he argued that SB 1070 would upset our relations with Mexico, which he called a "policy... of cordiality, friendship and cooperation." Really?
The Mexican government has tried to subvert American immigration laws and protested any attempts by the federal government to secure our borders long before SB 1070. In 2005, the Mexican government published the Guia de Migrante Mexicano (Guide for the Mexican Migrant) that gave advice to help illegal aliens break into our country, such as "If you cross by desert, try to walk at times when the heat will not be too intense."
Mexico President Felipe Calderon has stated "I have said that Mexico does not stop at its border, that wherever there is a Mexican, there is Mexico," and protested against "unilateral measures taken by the Congress and the United States government that exacerbate the persecution and the vexing treatment against undocumented Mexican workers."
These judges did not come up with these bogus arguments by themselves. They echo an affidavit against SB 1070 by Obama's Deputy Secretary of State that cited the same concerns over the United Nations and foreign governments.
While claiming this did not affect his decision, Judge Noonan also felt compelled to state in his opinion, "For those sympathetic to immigrants (he won't acknowledge they are illegal) to the United States, (SB 1070) is a challenge and a chilling foretaste of what other states might attempt." The role of the courts is to judge a law against the Constitution as the founders intended it. The views of Third World dictators, United Nations bureaucrats, and whether the judge themselves are "sympathetic to immigrants" should have no bearing on their rulings.
The Tenth Amendment of the Constitution clearly states that powers not "prohibited by (the Constitution) to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In the 87-page ruling, not one of the justices even tries to point to a word in the Constitution that denies states the right to enforce immigration law.
Prior precedent also supports SB 1070. The case United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez stated that there is "pre-existing general authority of state or local police officers to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws." The 9th Circuit's own decision in Gonzales v. City of Peoria said that local police can inquire about and if need be arrest illegal immigrants if there is "probable cause to believe either that illegal entry has occurred or that another offense has been committed."
Despite this setback, the people of Arizona will fight on. We will appeal this decision up to the Supreme Court, where there are at least a few constitutionalists on the bench. Poll after poll shows that the citizens of Arizona and America support SB 1070 by at least a 2-1 margin. Personally, I value their opinions more than a couple of left wing activist judges.
Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, is president of the Arizona state Senate.
Dale Whiting posted at 6:42 am on Sat, Apr 16, 2011.
Russell,
Constitutional Law is a 3 semester graduate level course at most law schools. It involves study of the Constitution itself and the 220 years of Supreme Court decisions handed down since the nation was formed. Each of the judges on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has more time in reviewing cases brought before them and rendering decisions than you have in politics. Together they probably have more time than you have earning a livelihood. So what qualifies you to critisize them with any degree of authority? Nothing.
Stop being a cry baby and man up, Russ! You messed up. Now own up!
Leon Ceniceros posted at 7:00 am on Sat, Apr 16, 2011.
LOL...DONCHA JUST LOVE SEEING THE ..."OBAMA TRUE BELIEVERS".
THE 9TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL'S RULINGS HAVE BEEN TURNED OVER MORE TIMES BY THE US SUPREME COURT THAN...........A FLAP JACK.......AT......IHOP..............LOL...............YOU DON'T NEED A.....LAW DEGREE FROM ....UC BEZERK-LEY....TO KNOW THAT................[wink]
sockratties posted at 7:04 am on Sat, Apr 16, 2011.
Senator Pearce…
The court did not rule that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional, it ruled that the (added) “one nation under god” forces an oath of religious bias which is unconstitutional.
The inclusion of the term “even Barack Obama” explains your own bias.
Noonan’s opinion [The role of the courts is to judge a law against the Constitution as the founders intended it.] should please you as you complain in your opening paragraph that the courts are setting their own agenda.
Get on with the job of a state senator and let the people we have elected to the U.S. Congress work on federal issues. You’re spending millions, by the time you drag this through the courts, to grandstand your ideology and personal agenda while you bad mouth the courts for the same fault.
DeadEye posted at 8:15 am on Sat, Apr 16, 2011.
More rants from "Rabid Russell" Pearce. Do you think the judges on the 9th Circuit can find their cancelled checks? Did the 9th Circuit judges take freebies from the Fiesta Bowl? Did the judges write legislation for their friends at the Fiesta Bowl? Did the judges get fired from a cushy state job at MVD for doctoring driver license records of a woman friend who got bust for DUI three times and was about to lose her license to drive until Russell saved her? Russell needs to be worried about the judges on the 9th Circuit who'll be hearing his appeal if he goes to prison for public corruption.
Dale Whiting posted at 9:47 am on Sat, Apr 16, 2011.
Leon,
Looks like comments are runing 1 [yours] in favor of Russ to 3 [including mine] against. How does it feel to be in a minority?
Please give us the full set of statistics. Are 2% more 9th Circuit Court decisions overturned than the number two in line, or the average, or 10% or 50%. Raw statistics like yours are misleading. But then misleading others is a Neo-con tactic, one I will not allow you get away using.
DeadEye,
Wonder if Animal Control would require Russ to get a rabies shot? It may be too late!
DeadEye posted at 11:19 am on Sat, Apr 16, 2011.
Russell has long yelled out numbers, statistics, legal decisions, court cases and Constitutional quotes and intents. When you look at the facts behind the rants, Russell comes up short on the facts and we come up short on quality representation in the legislature. The one thing where we do come up strong is being the brunt of Arizona jokes. While the whole world is laughing at us, do you see any investment from the outside world in the our kid's futures? The nut cases from Mesa have left a mark on Arizona that won't be soon forgotten. They've also left a blemish on the state's future that may never be repaired.
listenertoo posted at 11:41 am on Sat, Apr 16, 2011.
Russell, I am sure you will get cronies to write in to support your point of view, and that's fine. As one of your constituents, I am concerned though that you refuse to address the problem of being on the take from varying lobbyists, and we the public can't continue to be stonewalled. The more you ignore the problem the bigger it gets.
Have you vever heard of a very famous playwright and poet named Shakespeare? In his play "MacBeth", Lady MacBeth went OCD trying to watch the invisible blood from her hands. The line "The lady doth protest too much" refers to fact that she denied being involved in a muder so much that it actually showed her guilt, and quite frankly, it sure as heck looks like that's exactly what you are doing (not murder, but guilt.) It makes you look very, very weak.
Let's face it, SB1070, was good for one thing, and one thing only, and that was getting your name into the national spotlight and you loved it. You ate it up. Now, the state has to pick up the legal costs for a bill that had zero chance of ever getting past the 9th circuit. You knew that along, didn't you? But your mission was accomplished; you became a nationally famous and self-righteous, a postion you craved and refuse to give up.
Now your name is again in the spotlight but for something you seem to think is beneath your dignity to even address, but you are wrong, and it keeps looking worse and worse. We already know that you believe you are smarter than nearly everyone else, but that is a shaky position for any politican to be in. Even goofball fellow Tea Party faux witch, Cristine O'Donnell, was smart enough to know that people liked her because she was "just like them." Russell, if you ever knew this, you forgot. People never vote for someone because they believe they are superior. It just doesn't happen.
I don't know what public relation lobbyists you (rather we the taxpayers) are paying for, but they are doing a really poor job of advsing you. With the recall breathing down your neck you need a new plan, but your darn ego keeps getting in the way. Even Sarah Palin's victim act became tiresome and your days of glory seem to be in the rear view mirror.
Russ, the handwrting is on the wall. Maybe your glasses are in somewhere with those missing checks.
k33j88 posted at 6:28 am on Sun, Apr 17, 2011.
Which one of you iilegal-loving liberals ever took time to help the families affected by those murderous "undocumented"?
Brindy posted at 8:32 am on Sun, Apr 17, 2011.
Every time I see the name Dale Whiting on a post I know that grandma has yet again taken him off his meds.
In Felkner v. Jackson, decided March 31,2011 by the Supreme Court, the 9th circuit was again benchslapped for their rogue decision. Mr. Whiting should take a few moments, during his lucid periods, to get his facts straight.
In Felkner the Court, Per Curiam, stated ..." the state appellate court’s decision was plainly not unreasonable. There was simply no basis for the Ninth Circuit to reach the opposite conclusion, particularly in such a dismissive manner."
Felkner marked the 10th time since November 2010 that the justices had reversed rulings of the 9th Circuit, and nearly all of them were unanimous.
Those who criticize the court say the best evidence for their argument is the Supreme Court, which overturns the decisions of the Ninth more often than those of any other circuit. According to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts in Washington, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth 14 times of the 16 cases in the 2008-2009 term — an 88 percent reversal rate.
Judge Carlos T. Bea a Judge of the 9th Circuit Court, a Bush appointee, said: “The Supreme Court is still slapping it down when the Ninth Circuit drifts too far left. And not slapping down 5 to 4, slapping it down 9 to 0’s and 8 to 1’s” — suggesting that those cases show that even the more liberal wing of the Supreme Court disagrees with his colleagues’ reasoning.
Sometimes the reversals are biting, as in last year’s decision in Wong v. Belmontes, a death penalty case concerning a 1981 murder by Fernando Belmontes in the course of a burglary.
Brindy posted at 8:43 am on Sun, Apr 17, 2011.
For Mr. Whiting's benefit, as well as his liberal sycophants, let's examine Belmontes a bit closer. Let us learn together the thoughts of these wise Judges at the 9th Circuit.
Belmontes was a multiple murderer. One of his murders was quite horrific.
From the record: The jury saw autopsy photographs showing Steacy McConnell’s mangled head, her skull crushed by 15 to 20 blows from a steel dumbbell bar the jury found to have been wielded by Belmontes. McConnell’s corpse showed numerous “defensive bruises and contusions on [her] hands, arms, and feet,” id., at 839, which “plainly evidenced a desperate struggle for life at [Belmontes’] hands,” Belmontes, 755 P. 2d, at 354. Belmontes left McConnell to die, but officers found her still fighting for her life before ultimately succumbing to the injuries caused by the blows from Belmontes. Record 3. The jury also heard that this savage murder was committed solely to prevent interference with a burglary that netted Bel-montes $100 he used to buy beer and drugs for the night. McConnell suffered, and it was clearly needless.
Yes, our gang on the 9th Circuit overturned the Belmontes conviction because they felt that the trial court improperly allowed evidence, during sentencing, of Belmontes prior murders.
The Court, using its own words referred to the murder of McConnell as: The Ninth Cir-cuit saw the murder differently. It viewed the circumstances of the crime as only “conceivably significant” as an aggravating factor. Belmontes, 529 F. 3d, at 871. In particular, the Court of Appeals concluded that “[t]hecrime here did not involve . . . needless suffering on the part of the victim.”
That's right Mr. Whiting. That gang on the 9th Circuit actually held that the brutal murder of McConnell was not an aggravating factor in the sentencing of a multiple murdered because the victim did not needless suffer (after being beaten to death). Fortunately the Supreme Court sent Belmontes to prison where he remains today for a murder the 9th circuit didn't think was brutal enough.
That Mr. Whiting is the Court you defend. You wanted statistics, go ask Howard and McConnell - but of course they are dead and the buffoons at the 9th Circuit will continue to be overturned.
Brindy posted at 8:52 am on Sun, Apr 17, 2011.
Let's not forget Mr. Whitings assertion that Constitutional Law is a '3 semester graduate level course at most law schools'. Hardly.
From the Phoenix College of Law Web site. Note there are HOURS, not semesters.
1st year - Constitution law - nothing.
2nd and 3rd year - Constitution law - 6 HOURS!
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I (3 Hours)
Covers the structure of the federal system, the Tenth Amendment and the Supremacy Clause, separation of powers, Judicial power and review, Congressional powers, Executive powers, standing, justiciability, regulation of commerce, taxing and spending, substantive due process (economic rights), Reconstruction Amendments, requisites to litigating constitutional controversies, foreign affairs powers, war powers, treaty powers and impeachment.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II (3 Hours)
Examines Fourteenth Amendment and Incorporation, equal protection (discrimination, desegregation, affirmative action), procedural due process, substantive due process (privacy and fundamental rights) and the First Amendment freedoms of religion, speech, expression, and press.
Prerequisite: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
Whiting, try some research first the next time you open you blow hole.
Cerulean posted at 9:11 am on Sun, Apr 17, 2011.
Pearce,
Were you instrumental in passing a budget that cut millions in funding for education while increasing funding to the Department of Corrections? Yes, you were.
A very quick search tells me that undocumented immigrants represent 14 percent of Arizona state prisoners. That is nearly 6000 people (up from 4000 in 2004), sitting in jail for crimes, most notably kidnapping (we have 2000 kidnapers sitting in jail).
How much money does the state Department of Corrections draw by housing illegal prisoners? Where does that money go?
Am I to believe that the Prison industry is not also offering little presents for your grubby little fingers. We all know you have no couth.
The Department of Homeland Security, Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act authorizes DHS to enter into agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies, permitting designated officers at approved facilities to perform immigration law enforcement functions. Why did the DHS remove Joe Arpaio from participating in this program? Why does the state need SB1070?
I might suggest a few explanations’ but my comment would not pass the inappropriate language test.
I have so little respect for you, Mr. Pearce, that it is difficult for me to address you by your proper name.
Dale Whiting posted at 10:25 am on Sun, Apr 17, 2011.
Brindy,
Care to give us some comparision rates on other circuits? The typical case taken up on appear is the case where there either are disagreements between the circuits [some going one way and others going another way] or as you point out, reasoning which seems to ignor prior precident. Don't we have at least 11 circuit courts. How are the other 10 doing?
And while we are at it, care to tell us how you think the Supremes are going to view Russell Pearce's SB1070? It surely looks like pre-emption to me!
listenertoo posted at 11:58 am on Sun, Apr 17, 2011.
Brindy is one of the lobbyists/advisers of Pearce's. Chances are good that Brindy wrote most of the article. The writing style is eerily similar. Fellow Tea Party Person S.Palin would write glowing letters about herself, using a fictictious name, in the Alskan newspapers, so it is fairly obvious that Pearce would have the writer of this article defend him in these comments. From Pearce's quotes in the news, he doesn't even speak grammatically, or with any kind of thoughtfulness, so we know he is not the author of this article,
It's over for Pearce, and he is lashing out (per people like Brindy. What the heck kind of name is Brindy???) People with class act with dignity, oh, and they usually don't take feebies with strings attached. (Yes, yes, we know there were Democrats who did that too, but they aren't claiming to look for bogus canceled checks.)
The dignified thing for Pearce to do would be to retire, but dignity is not one of Pearce's strong points. No, blaming others has always been Pearce's strong suit, and he like Pavlov's dogs, continues to salivate when the illegal immigrant bell, or free goodies bell rings. To quote the old fable, "A leopard can't change its spots." If it could Pearce would "man up" , but that is not in his character.
Brindy posted at 12:18 pm on Sun, Apr 17, 2011.
I think SB1070 will lose in the Supreme Court - as well it should. The law is overly broad and poorly written. When the case hits Washington, the opinions of Mr. Pearce, the Governor and the rest of us simply won't matter. What will be important is whether or not the law is constitutional.
You miss my point and the quotes about the 9th Circuit. The cases the 9th are being resoundingly overturned are cases involving their liberal interpretation of State statutes and their continuing attempt to stick their noses where they don't belong.
However, to your point. As of 2009 the 9th Circuit's record shows 94 percent of its cases (that were appealed) reversed at least in part, extends a long-running trend of being disproportionately overturned. The 9th circuit appeals court -- the only one where a majority of judges were appointed by Democratic presidents -- has had a larger-than-average share of its cases overturned in eight of the past 10 years.
Some of the 9th's problems can certainly be argued that it is 'out west' where there is more experimentation with social issues, such as SB1070. Nevertheless the circuit court just does not seem to get it right.
What is important is to look at the RATE of reversals, not the percentages. Being larger the 9th circuit has a higher number of cases filed yet their RATE stands at 84%,
For example, the 1st circuit had four cases appealed and all four were reversed - a rate of 100%. That # is misleading though when compared to the 9th circuit in 2004. In that year the 9th circuit had 19 cases appealed and 16 were reversed, an 84% reversal rate.
In the other circuits, the data is similar, very low #'s of cases appealed (the 6th with 11 cases and the 11th with 10 cases for corresponding reversal rates of 64% and 50%).
What is stunning about the 9th circuit though is the tone and tenor of their decisions, which have caught the eye of the Supreme Court Justices, both liberal and conservative. In Swarthout v. Cooke 562 U. S. ____ (2011), reversing Cooke v. Solis the 9th circuit tried to create law where it did not exist. The circuit court ruled that a state prisoner had a 'liberty interest' in a state parole hearing, thereby conferring 14th amendment rights to the prisoner allowing him to seek Federal protection.
The Justices saw through the argument and again bench slapped the 9th circuit. "The short of the matter is that the responsibility for assuring that the constitutionally adequate procedures governing California’s parole system are properly applied rests with California courts,and is no part of the Ninth Circuit’s business."
rockpounder posted at 5:49 pm on Sun, Apr 17, 2011.
Wonder who Pearce got to write the guest commentary for him. Some lobbyist bootlicker? They man is obviously too filled with hate and rage to put two coherent words together, much less write a version of a legal opinion. This article is as credible as would be an article under his byline appearing in Parenting Magazine.
greyhawk posted at 5:49 pm on Sun, Apr 17, 2011.
How much longer must intelligent rational citizens put up with the gross absurdities
of the quixotic, brainwashed, circus of the ninth district?
Dale Whiting posted at 9:56 am on Mon, Apr 18, 2011.
Brindy,
Now we are getting somewhere!
It would appear that were Senator Pearce to have gone to the Phoenix College for Constitutional law he could have taken 6 hours [semister or quarter is not made clear] not just 3 semister hours. But my point remains! He is no authority, much less a scholar on Constitutional law. Yet he has an opinion similar to yours. OK, we all have opinions. How much Con Law do you have under your belt?
And nice to see you admit that the 9th circuit is not unique in having its decisions on cases reversed. I do not have your references so I cannot critisize the quality. But I did take a few hours this morning to review the 2006 docket of decisions, hardly a huge sample, but it was Justice Robert's first year.
There are 12 Federal Courts of Appeal, circuits 1 through 11 and the DC. Of those cases going to the Supreme Court from a Federal Court of Appeals [I counted 51 in 2006], 8 of the 9 from the 9th circuit were reversed. Clearly the 9th circuit is the largest, both in terms of numbers of cases and population. Discussions on dividing the 9th up have stalled on consideration of how to divide it up. With Arizona on the south and Washington on the north, California would have to be divided in half, and no one wants to divide up a state nor redistrict surrounging states to give California its own Court of Appeals. So I am not moved by your argument that smaller courts have higher numbers just because of the luck of the draw. In 2006 take the five most requently reversed Federal Appellate courts and combine their numbers. We get 10 cases compared to the 9th 9 cases. And all ten of the cases coming from this combined group were reversed!
Yes folks, the 9th Circuit only came in 6th in 2006. At 89% reversed, they did better than did 5 other smaller Circuit Courts of Appeal. In order, the 9th was followed by the 11th at 67%, [then the average at 61%], then the 6th and 5th at 60% and 50% respectively, then a three way tie for 10th place between the 4th, 8th and 10th @ 0% of their combined 7 cases.
So do some research yourself, Brandy.
Yes, there is some probability that some and perhaps all five grounds for making SB1070 unconstitutional will be reversed by the Supremes. But first, the Supremes must decide to accept the case. And where other states are weighing in with their own versions of SB1070, and there not being any other Circuit Courts of Appeal weighing in differently yet, until such time as we have a divided in the opinions of other Courts, the Supremes are likely to deny cert!
So thank you Russell Pearce for leading the way! You really know how to make Arizona look like a bunch of idiots. In all likelyhood, Arizona will stick out like a sore thumb for several more years before it has a chance at either vindication or more stupidity in being joined by others.
Dale Whiting posted at 10:04 am on Mon, Apr 18, 2011.
And P.S. Brindy,
Is "listenertoo" correct? Are you one of the lobbyists/advisers of Pearce's. Chances are good that Brindy wrote most of the article."
listenertoo says "The dignified thing for Pearce to do would be to retire, but dignity is not one of Pearce's strong points." listenertoo will get to argument from me!
Brittanicus posted at 1:50 pm on Mon, Apr 18, 2011.
No need to deport as the cost would be enormous; not that matters to Washington? The demand from TEA PARTY Senators and Congressman of the newly revised, E-Verify that will detect illegal aliens in the workplace will enforce the 1986 Reagan law. Nobody is to be exempt--longtime employees and new hires will be verified; Attrition by enforcement! Severe fines of companies who scorn the law, including business asset confiscation and imprisonment; not house arrest, but placement in the general prison population. Just because you own a business, doesn't mean you can hire illegal labor? Fact is they are stealing employment, from the ten million Americans out of work. They have families to feed, mortgages to pay and so there should be zero tolerance for this heinous criminal issue. Auditing of companies should be stepped up and those caught red-handed, should be imprisoned as an example of not less than one to five years. No more slap on the wrist, but be held accountable. TO ME THAT'S A FELONY? IN FACT ENTERING AMERICA WITHOUT PERMISSION SHOULD BE CLASSIFIED AS A FELONY.
As thousands of illegal alien families are leaving Arizona, so the price to support them there is going down. Medicaid payments for economic non-citizens will be receding, including the costs for education, health-Care and prison cells, which is the States portion of the obligation. Hundreds of millions will be saved, even a billion or so. Utah--The sanctuary State of California, Nevada can least afford it, with the Golden State bordering on a 24 Billion dollar insolvency. Those lax States are financially seem unconnected to the honest population, will find the U-haul's and trucks crossing the State line hoping for a new refuge? They certainly won’t be heading for Georgia, but they could easily go northwards to Oregon or Washington, if State legislators approve driver’s licenses for illegal aliens. Assuredly, New Mexico that has just canceled enactment of a bill to deny driver’s licenses will get their share of economic refugees from Arizona.
Other States where citizens and permanent resident’s rights are sold to the highest bidder will also see crowds of foreign national families arriving there. The fact is today through rampant incompetence of both political parties covering decades. The invasion has allowed by sheer neglect, attributing to the damaging US treasury deficit, that is destroying America. Households may have two parents that have been allowed to stay, because a newborn baby has received instant citizenship under the misinterpreted 14th Amendment. Over time other illegal family members have stolen across the body living in the same likely Section 8 housing. Few lawmakers have dared declare they are anti-illegal immigrant as they cringe against the Leftist "Political Correctness" garbage of the racial bigotry. But that’s the only agenda the Left has got, because they cannot fight the massive costs presented to them.
But a few brave political advocates are not being deceived, by the gaping border fence and are now enacting laws to stem the continuous influx of illegal migrants, immigrants, criminals and almost certainly murdering terrorists. Last week, Rep. Bilbray R-CA) added his name to the list of co-sponsors for the Nuclear Priority Act that would end chain migration and the CLEAR Act that would require collaboration between local law enforcement agents and federal agents in the enforcement of federal immigration laws. Ordinary working people are informing ICE of employers who are hiring illegal aliens and as the job market gets even rougher "Whistle blowers" will come out of the woodwork to report suspicious goings on? The TEA PARTY will not abide the liberal court system or the Leftist Czars hidden in the Department of InJustice. They are using unconstitutional means for clandestine amnesties, Immigration Reform, Sanctuary States or anything that has the obnoxious stench of Amnesty.
The Tea Party has a propagating foothold in the Republican Party, as thousands every day of every party affiliation is joining. The Tea Party lawmakers will not tolerate raising the debt ceiling in the US budget, to support the 20 million plus illegal alien families using the birthright baby law to gain a foothold in America. Thousands will keep coming until the American people demand the real fences be constructed and every tool available is used to stop this invasion. Want truthful answers, to your question of costs and so much more, view NumbersUSA website.
Dale Whiting posted at 2:24 pm on Mon, Apr 18, 2011.
Brittanicus,
A felony you say! I forget precisely what factor or factors distinguish felonies from misdeamenors. If I recall correctly it is the amount of fine and/or time in jail assessable. And where being here illegally is a federal and not a state offense, it will take a change in the federal law to serve your prejudices. I have yet to hear anything from Tea Partiers addressing this sort of matter. One way to make government bigger is to increase the classification of crimes. Would you want the Tea Party to grow the Federal Prision system bigger? I hope not!