View Full Version : America’s choice: Arizona or San Francisco?

05-12-2010, 10:19 PM
America’s choice: Arizona or San Francisco?
Sen. Russell Pearce Arizona senator

May 11, 2010

I am State Senator Russell Pearce, the author of SB 1070, signed by Governor Jan Brewer. Maybe liberals ought to read the Constitution, case law, or even just the bill itself before citing incorrect information. Fear mongering and misinformation are opponents’ only tool against this common sense legislation.

Illegal is not a race, it is a crime. SB 1070 simply codifies federal law into state law, removes excuses and concerns about states’ inherent authority to enforce these laws and removes all illegal “sanctuary” policies.

When do we stand up for Americans and the rule of law? If not now, when? We are a nation of laws, a Constitutional republic.

Arizona did not make illegal, illegal. Illegal was already illegal. It is a crime to enter or remain in the U.S. in violation of federal law. States have had inherent authority to enforce immigration laws and have failed or refused to do so. Sanctuary policies are illegal under federal law (8 USC 1644 & 1373), yet we have them all over the United States.

Paul Kantner of the 1960s rock band Jefferson Airplane once remarked, “San Francisco is 49 square miles surrounded by reality.” When I first heard that San Francisco was planning to boycott Arizona over the SB 1070 legislation that I introduced, this description seemed fitting.

However, when neighboring Oakland’s city council voted 7-0 to boycott Arizona last Tuesday, and President Pro Tem of the California State Senate Derrell Steinberg announced a campaign in the Legislature to boycott us, it became clear that San Francisco is merely ahead of the California crazy curve.

Why did I propose SB 1070? I saw the enormous fiscal and social costs that illegal immigration was imposing on my state. I saw Americans out of work, hospitals and schools overflowing, and budgets strained. Most disturbingly, I saw my fellow citizens victimized by illegal alien criminals. The murder of Robert Krentz — whose family had been ranching in Arizona since 1907 — by illegal alien drug dealers was the final straw for many Arizonans. There are dozens and dozens of other citizens of our state who have been murdered by illegal aliens. Currently, 95 illegal aliens are in Maricopa County jail for murder.

Most of the hysterical critics of the bill do not even know what is in it. All SB 1070 does is allow Arizona law enforcement officials to detain illegal aliens under state law. The law does not allow police to stop suspected illegal aliens unless they have already come across them through normal “lawful conduct” such as a traffic stop, and explicitly prohibits racial profiling.

Aside from the unfounded accusation of racial profiling, the chief complaint about the bill is that it infringes on federal jurisdiction by enforcing laws. However, there is a long legal precedent going back to 1976 that allows states to pass legislation to discourage illegal immigration so long as it does not conflict with federal law. SB 1070 was specifically designed to mirror federal immigration law to avoid such a conflict.

For all their newfound respect for the authority of federal immigration law, the open borders advocates who oppose SB 1070 have no problems with “sanctuary cities” such as San Francisco that explicitly obstruct federal immigration authorities to protect illegal aliens. In 2008, San Francisco began a campaign to encourage illegal aliens to take advantage of the city’s public services.

Mayor Gavin Newsom stated, “We have worked with the Board of Supervisors, Department of Public Health, labor and immigrant rights groups to create a city government-wide public awareness campaign so that immigrants know the city won’t target them for using city services.”

The results were tragic. A few months after the campaign, Edwin Ramos, an illegal alien and member of the MS 13 gang, murdered San Francisco resident Tony Bologna and his two sons who he mistook for rival gang members. Ramos had a lengthy criminal record including a felony assault on a pregnant woman. He was arrested on gang and weapons charges and promptly released just three months before the murder. Not once did San Francisco report him to immigration authorities.

One month after the murder of Bologna, illegal alien Alexander Izaguirre stole Amanda Keifer’s purse and then intentionally ran her over with an SUV, laughing as she hit the pavement and fractured her skull. Four months earlier, Alexander Izaguirre had been arrested for felony dealing of crack cocaine. Not only did San Francisco refuse to turn him over to immigration authorities, city officials expunged his record and helped get him a job, which is criminal in and of itself.

Keifer asked the obvious question, “If they’ve committed crimes and they’re not citizens, then why are they here? Why haven’t they been deported?”

The answer is that politicians like Gavin Newsom put the interests of illegal aliens before the safety of American citizens, not unlike Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon and others.

Our law is already working. One can just scan the newspapers and see dozens of headlines like “Illegal Immigrants Leaving Arizona Over New Law: Tough, Controversial New Legislation Scares Many in Underground Workforce Out of State.”

In contrast, American citizens are leaving California. For the last four years, more Americans have left the state than have moved in.

In criticizing the SB 1070, President Barack Obama said, “Our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others.” There is nothing irresponsible about enforcing our law, but President Obama is right in that this is only necessary because the federal government does not do its job.

The solution is not “comprehensive immigration reform,” a euphemism for amnesty. This will only encourage more illegal immigration. Making illegal aliens legal does nothing to change the social and fiscal costs they impose on Arizona or the nation as a whole. In fact, the Heritage Foundation’s research puts the cost of amnesty at over $2.5 trillion.

The federal government simply needs to enforce its immigration laws by cracking down on employers of illegal aliens, securing our borders, and deporting illegal alien criminals. Attrition by enforcement.

If states understand states’ rights and our Constitutional duty and responsibility to our citizens, this legislation in Arizona will be a model for states across the nation and the federal government and it will end illegal immigration to America, but President Obama is looking toward San Francisco instead.

05-12-2010, 11:08 PM
Backfiring boycotts make immigration the surprise issue of 2010
By Matt Towery

May 12, 2010 —

No one has been more startled than this pollster that immigration has burst onto the scene as an issue more significant to most Americans than health care, financial bailouts and the economy.

So maybe I'm a better pollster than prognosticator. But I do have enough horse sense to trace the trajectory of a new issue once it gets to be headline news.

Arizona's new illegal-immigration law requires that state residents have on their persons proof of legal residency -- but now they can only be asked for this proof under carefully restricted circumstances.

The law immediately ignited a firestorm of passionate opposition. Most critics hailed from states besides Arizona that have large illegal populations -- or from Americans who don't believe it's so important to determine people's legal status in the country. Actual and threatened boycotts against Arizona started to make the news.

Based on a series of recent public opinion polls, it appears to me that all this noisy outrage over the Arizona law is backfiring against opponents of the law. Consensus public opinion seems to be shifting in favor of a strict interpretation of what constitutes legal residency in the United States, and for stricter enforcement of the relevant laws.

It's my firm belief that if someone is in America illegally, they should be treated as such and deported. I also see cases that fall into a grayer area, such as that of a 21-year-old who is nearing graduation at a Georgia university. Through no choice of her own, she came to this country when she was 16. Now she is fighting to keep from being deported, at least until she finishes school.

Somewhere on the way to getting the immigration situation solved there must be room for compassion and empathy for our fellow humans of all backgrounds, ethnicities and circumstances. But it's important to note that this column isn't primarily about my opinions.

Here is a cold, hard fact for those who seek to oppose the Arizona immigration law through boycotts of the state or its products, services or even its sports teams: You're cooked. Your indignation is only hardening the resolve of those who've adopted a zero-tolerance stance toward people living here illegally.

Nor are many Americans being swayed by media stories, including a recent network TV segment, that seem to suggest the U.S. is deliberately, or at least negligently, making it dangerous for Mexicans to cross the border illegally.

Again, the results of public opinion polls are clear. Americans are frustrated with the nation's high unemployment rate. Mostly low-paying jobs that a few years ago they were content to leave to illegal residents and others, they now feel possessive of.

Think of the construction industry. When the economy was robust for so long, there appeared to be a belief across the country that denying these low-paying jobs to illegals might put a brake on the good times by unnecessarily driving up labor costs. Such reasoning was a poorly hidden justification for "compromise" legislation that winked at illegal immigration.

Now many local governments are fighting for revenue. Voters have little interest in supporting a workforce of illegal immigrants. And for many, there is no gray area or willingness to consider exceptions such as the one I noted above.

Politicians take note: Tea party fervor could have a synergistic effect with anti-immigration sentiment in stoking a huge voter turnout this year, both in contested primaries -- especially Republican ones -- and in November.

Immigration debate also provides context to otherwise anecdotal events. The Web is rife with outraged discussion about the high school students in California who were sent home for wearing clothes decorated with American flags on Cinco de Mayo.

Now throw in the boycotts of Arizona by various governments and organizations. Many Americans are not only annoyed, but also puzzled, by these actions. To them, the Arizona law is common sense. Now illegal immigration may move from being just another news story to a dominant political theme. America's mood in this election year is getting surly. We shall see.

05-12-2010, 11:17 PM
In contrast, American citizens are leaving California. For the last four years, more Americans have left the state than have moved in.

:shout: attention ..will the last american citizen leaving california please bring the flag with you...

05-13-2010, 01:05 AM
everyone is moving out of CA. i have been looking into it also. CA is turning into a cesspool of criminals and absurd real estate prices.

05-13-2010, 01:23 AM
Americans Fed Up, Leaving California
Filed under: America — rjjrdq @ 8:00 pm

Once the envy of the nation, California, with its mild climate, golden beaches, rolling hills, cheap living and Hollywood chic, is now the embarrassment of the nation, and anyone with the means to get out is doing so.

At least the climate is still mild, despite what the global warming alarmists would like you to believe. Of course warm weather requires air conditioning, but due to the influx of immigrants-legal and illegal alike, California’s sagging infrastructure now sees rolling power blackouts on a routine basis. Those rolling hills are now dotted with cookie cutter homes, a byproduct of Californians with means trying to escape the declining cities. Beaches are now closed several times a year, due to sewage spills and rain induced runoff that just make the water too dangerous to wade in.

The Hollywood of old is now gone as well. The once proud movie mecca is now run down, with gangs, the homeless and prostitution rampant on any given night. The only decent part of town is the unincorporated West Hollywood, know for its high concentration of gays. That part of town is not bad actually, although the traffic, like most of Los Angeles, is a nightmare.

Those are just the tactile and emotional declines of California. Sacramento, the state capitol, has spent the state into oblivion, with waste and fraud that could rival even Illinois. With social freebies galore, it’s a magnet for any illegal alien that needs a handout. What taxpayers remain are the ones funding those handouts, but the pool is shrinking by the day. California tops the nation in the number of citizens running for lives to other states, and given the fact that the unemployment rate is over 8% and rising, there will no doubt be more people on the way out. The unfriendly business environment in California that is becoming legend doesn’t help at all.

And why not leave? Not only are jobs scarce, lawmakers have been molding California into a defacto Mexican state for years, turning once decent cities into sprawling barrios. Now, imminent tax hikes on those who remain have pushed even more people off the deep end, which will clearly exacerbate an already out of control budget situation. If you thought this year was obscene, just wait for what’s on the way, when less sources of revenue (the taxpayer), will have to carry more of the load.

Revenue and brain-drain. That will leave the poor, the uneducated, and the dependent to prop up California. What are the odds that will work out?

05-13-2010, 01:51 AM
Why People Are Leaving California
• November 19, 2004

According to recent reporting Californians are staging a mass exodus from the state because it has become too expensive to live there. Why has it become too expensive? Because taxpayers are forced to pay for crap like this:

San Francisco Chronicle – Berkeley tolerates its homeless people, and takes good care of their stuff when they abandon it in shopping carts.
Not only does the city pack carts and other belongings into a huge container in case folks want it back — it also deep-freezes them for as long as 90 days.
About a year ago, Berkeley bought a 40-foot-long, 8-foot-wide refrigerated container for $8,200 after public works officials complained about vermin infesting carts stored at the city’s outdoor corporation yard.
The city signed a five-year, $61,500 lease with Caltrans for land under the University Avenue overpass at Interstate 80 to put the container on, and ran power to the unit. . . .
The city, which faces a $7.5 million deficit, should treat abandoned shopping carts as stolen property instead of worrying so much about the contents, they say.
“The amount of money wasted in this city is so outrageous it’s ridiculous, ” said Jim Hultman, who learned of the cart freezing while fighting a $50,000- a-year program near his house that gave homeless people rented storage space.

That’s right, taxpayers in Berkeley paid nearly $70,000 to keep the scattered and stinking belongings of homeless people locked in a freezer.
I am thankful I live in a red state where we, usually, avoid this kind of nonsense.

05-13-2010, 06:10 AM
and let's not forget california's mello roos. where you can get taxed, in some places, up to $900 per month on your house for the next 20 to 40 years.

05-13-2010, 09:05 AM
"California is a RED state. I say so."

< Ricardismo >

05-18-2010, 01:19 PM
No place can be worse than New York right now. Actually, California and New York are probably about even, economy-wise