« | »

AP: AZ Ruling Sends A Message To States

From the Orchestrated Associated Press:

Arizona preparing appeal of immigration ruling

By Bob Christie, Associated Press Writer

July 29, 2010

PHOENIX – Arizona is preparing to ask an appeals court to lift a judge’s ruling that put most of the state’s immigration law on hold in a key first-round victory for the federal government in a fight that may go to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Gov. Jan Brewer called Wednesday’s decision by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton "a bump in the road" and vowed to appeal…

Bolton indicated the government has a good chance at succeeding in its argument that federal immigration law trumps state law.

Given that the Arizona law mirrors the federal law, this argument is preposterous on its face.

But the key sponsor of Arizona’s law, Republican Rep. Russell Pearce, said the judge was wrong and predicted the state would ultimately win the case.

Opponents of the law said the ruling sends a strong message to other states hoping to replicate the law.

Funny enough, that is also what the New York Times says. And, indeed, it’s what the AP wanted to say with this very article. (See below.)

"Surely it’s going to make states pause and consider how they’re drafting legislation and how it fits in a constitutional framework," Dennis Burke, the U.S. attorney for Arizona, told The Associated Press…

He added: "So this idea that this is going to be a blueprint for other states is seriously in doubt. The blueprint is constitutionally flawed."

The Obama administration fears other states trying to control their borders like a vampire fears the cross. Why is that? Since the government has admitted they don’t have the resources to do the job, you would think they would welcome any and all help.

There must be another agenda at work. We wonder what it could possibly be. We suspect it might have something to do with the prospect of registering 12 to 25 million new Democrat voters.

The ruling was anxiously awaited in the U.S. and beyond.

Meaning, ‘beyond the Rio Grande.’

About 100 protesters in Mexico City who had gathered at the U.S. Embassy broke into applause when they learned of the ruling via a laptop computer. Mariana Rivera, a 36-year-old from Zacatecas, Mexico, who is living in Phoenix on a work permit, said she heard about the ruling on a Spanish-language news program.

"I was waiting to hear because we’re all very worried about everything that’s happening," said Rivera, who phoned friends and family with the news. "Even those with papers, we don’t go out at night at certain times there’s so much fear (of police). You can’t just sit back and relax."

If Mr. Rivera is in this country legally, he is required by federal law to carry his ‘papers’ at all times. So why should he have anything to fear?

Lawmakers or candidates in as many as 18 states say they want to push similar measures when their legislative sessions start up again in 2011. Some lawmakers pushing the legislation said they would not be daunted by the ruling and plan to push ahead in response to what they believe is a scourge that needs to be tackled.

These people are obviously reactionary racist xenophobes who have no regard for US law. Unlike the enlightened illegal aliens and those who aid and abet them.

Arizona is the nation’s epicenter of illegal immigration, with more than 400,000 undocumented residents.

Or, rather, ‘undocumented Democrats.’

The state’s border with Mexico is awash with smugglers and drugs that funnel narcotics and immigrants throughout the U.S., and the influx of illegal migrants drains vast sums of money from hospitals, education and other services

Ah, now that the Arizona law has been safely slapped down, even the AP feels it’s safe to actually admit some of these inconvenient details.

Kris Kobach, the University of Missouri-Kansas City law professor who helped write the law and train Arizona police officers in immigration law, conceded the ruling weakens the force of Arizona’s efforts to crack down on illegal immigrants. He said it will likely be a year before a federal appeals court decides the case.

And probably years before it reaches the Supreme Court. By which time either amnesty will have already been rammed through Congress or Mr. Obama would have gotten another liberal on the bench.

In the meantime, other states like Utah will likely take up similar laws, possibly redesigned to get around Bolton’s objections.

"The ruling … should not be a reason for Utah to not move forward," said Utah state Rep. Carl Wimmer, a Republican from Herriman City, who said he plans to co-sponsor a bill similar to Arizona’s next year and wasn’t surprised it was blocked. "For too long the states have cowered in the corner because of one ruling by one federal judge."

The outrage. Imagine trying to represent the expressed will of the people who have elected you to office – even after a federal court judge has stayed a similar effort? Are we a nation of laws or of men?

For now, the federal government has the upper-hand in the dispute, by virtue of the strength of its arguments and the precedent on the pre-emption issue

Well, it’s good to see that the Associated Press hasn’t taken sides.

And speaking of our orchestrated press, we posted an earlier New York Times article on this same subject which had the headline: ‘Ruling Against Arizona Is a Warning for Other States.’

And, oddly enough, the original headline for this very AP piece was: ‘Immigration Ruling Could Send Message To States.’

Indeed both headlines seem to parrot the comments from the DOJ, the ACLU and La Raza, and the rest of the opponents of any kind of border control.

But surely that is just a coincidence.

This article was posted by Steve on Thursday, July 29th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

13 Responses to “AP: AZ Ruling Sends A Message To States”

  1. proreason says:

    Love the ‘ruling’.

    I’m fondly hoping that the DOJ next wins lawsuits that ban religion, guns and freedom of speech. (You know they would LOVE to do it.)

    This country is entirely too peaceful.

    • tranquil.night says:

      “This country is entirely too peaceful.”

      I bet the Snake is thinking the same thing: ‘Why haven’t them gun-waving wingnuts gone off the deep end yet? I’ve tied ’em to a chair and made them watch the shredding of their constitution page by page this past year!’

      He’s just waiting for the Tea Party to get disobedient and make their first radical move even though the SEIU rent-a-mobs have already been trying to stoke it forever. They want it to happen so bad they don’t care how completely obvious they are about it.

      I still don’t think enough people leaning to our side understand that this is more than a very Liberal administration but in fact a ruling regime pursuing a revolutionary conspiracy in complete violation of the Oath of Office. But there’s nothing we can do to reach them. The truth is there for all to see. God help us if they don’t wake up by November.

    • proreason says:

      “I bet the Snake is thinking the same thing”

      no doubt. And we should be very careful this year, and assuming November is successful, through 2012.


      As with everything else about the criminals who dictate our lives, why must conservatives be polite, respectful and subservient to a mafia regime? Were they so in their illegal power grabs of the last 100 years?
      – Race riots
      – Greenpeace
      – Code Pink
      – Vietnam demonstrations
      – Bill Ayers
      – Union riots
      – SEIU
      – pitchforks and bankers
      – Acorn on any day of the week
      – any liberal “demonstration”
      – marxist revolutions around the world

      So I say, gee………isn’t it convenient that only disagreement by conservatives has to follow the dainty rules of decorum ‘permitted’ by the Marxists for their subjects…….given that the opposite applies when they want to get their way. (Ruling Class wannabe Michael Medved doesn’t even want us violent hicks to say “take back the country”. It must be racist.)

      Particularly since this country was founded by people who were willing to put their lives at stake to defeat rulers who were far more benevolent than our self-declared Ruling Class.

  2. Rusty Shackleford says:

    “Opponents of the law said the ruling sends a strong message to other states hoping to replicate the law. “

    That message is:

    “We, the minority ruling class have spoken once again and when will you serfs, you peons realize that we don’t care what you want (or need for that matter) unless it fits within the confines of our superior thinking. You have no idea what it is that’s best for you. You WILL allow us to do as we please and to hell with you”

    I had hoped that Bolton wouldn’t succumb to the pressures of the ruling class telling her what to do, as in Holder phoning her and giving her the “down-low” of it. That being, if she hopes to ever continue living a peaceful life free of conflict, then she had better straighten up and obey the masters who appointed her (Clinton).

    Socialism is such a great, fun holiday. Don’t you just love it?

    • Rick Caird says:

      Rusty, I am not sure it sends the message to the other states the AP hopes it does. for one thing, Bolton focused on the separation of two ssentences and determined to read them as separate statements rather than as a whole. She did that even though Arizona pointed our how they interpreted it.

      Second, Bolton agreed with the Feds that they were much too busy with other things to actually answer Arizona’s inquiries even if Congress has mandated the Fed answer those inquiries. Bolton reasoned if the Feds didn’t answer the inquiry, some people could be held too long.

      All in all, it seems like quite a reach. Another state with a similar statute, but more clear language might well get a judge who will not follow Bolton’s reasoning. Then, the Feds are in trouble and so will Bolton be.

  3. Liberals Demise says:

    C’mon Texas and whip it out!!

    It’s time to make it loud and clear to the Federalies that they aren’t up to carrying out their job.

    Don’t Tread On U.S. and Don’t Mess With Texas!!

    • proreason says:

      Texas seems have it’s border problem better controlled than Arizona. Perhaps because of the Rio Grande. Whatever the reasons, Gov Perry has made it pretty clear that Texas isn’t going to follow suit.

      And California certainly won’t either.

      So that leaves New Mexico, which hasn’t said anything to my knowledge.

      It doesn’t look like there will be a movement based on what Arizona is doing. It seems to have a unique situation. I suspect it is because Arizona’s problem with violence is the most acute. The cities in Arizona are larger and closer to the border than in NM. The border is 3 times as long as California and twice as long as NM, and there are no river barriers as in Texas.

    • Right of the People says:


      New Mexico is sort of a unique situation, they were a providence of Mexico who voted to join the US. They have two official languages both Spanish and English and their constitution is also bi-lingual. They do have an illegal problem, every state actually does, but isn’t as bad because there aren’t nearly as many border towns as Arizona.

      Arizona has the most problems, partly because of the land border and the Mexican providence that abuts it, Sonora has always been known for its lawlessness so its a bad situation all around. Of course the Mexican government legalizing drugs sure hasn’t helped.

    • tranquil.night says:

      “And California certainly won’t either.”

      You’re correct but the divide over this is stark with convective anger. There are powerful leftist amnesty groups living vicariously through this fight in Arizona right now and the overwhelming majority in Southern California that isn’t illegal and supports the law are about to pull their hair out over the antics of these people and the corrupt politicians with which they’re connected.

      Meanwhile our dope of a RINO gubernatorial candidate Whitman can’t get the talking points straight on her “just voting present” position. So no, our state is definitely still screwed. Even a lot of disillusioned Democrat state workers who keep getting furloughs and unpaid leave are realizing that now.

  4. NoNeoCommies says:

    The message is try again, try harder, and tell your voters it is up to them to toss the current crop of criminals out.

  5. Natural Born Citizen says:

    I wonder if Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor will recuse herself from hearing this case when it reaches the Supreme Court? Being a member of La Raza would seem to be an obvious conflict of interest.

  6. TwilightZoned says:

    “AZ Ruling Sends a Message to States”

    That message may turn out to be succession. I
    certainly can see Texas being first in line.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »