"Ich bin ein Arizonan"

"Ich bin ein Arizonan"

A comment from one of our readers to the post, "Proud to be an Arizonan," was so good, I decided to make it a post by itself.

Carl A. Voigtsberger said...

To all Arizonans: I WAS one of the silent majority, but no longer. I support wholeheartedly your new immigration law and the lawful enforcement of that Law. Congradulations to your Governor. She has Guts. Remember when JFK said in Berlin that " He was a Berliner" to show the world that he supported Berliners. Well, "Ich bin ein Arizonan". Every state in the union should be supporting Arizona.

Thanks for being first.

Carl A. Voigtsberger,

Cheyenne, Wyoming

PROUD TO BE AN ARIZONAN

PROUD TO BE AN ARIZONAN.


By Bob Haran;

I'm proud of my state of Arizona, proud of our legislature for passing SB 1070 and of our governor for having the courage to sign 1070 into law.

I'm proud of the majority of the people of Arizona who will not bend under the pressure of the lies and distortions perpetrated against Arizona and our law, good people who are opposed to racism and know the difference between truth and propaganda.

I'm proud to be an American and a citizen of the United States but most of all I'm proud to be a citizen of the Forty-Eights state of these United States of America.

I'm proud to be an Arizonan.

The Fuss over Arizona's Immigration Law

The Fuss over Arizona's Immigration Law
Wednesday, April 28, 2010

By Brit Hume


The president says the Arizona law is "misguided."

His attorney general says it's "unfortunate."

In San Francisco they are talking about boycotting the state.

Al Sharpton is on the way to lead marches and Linda Greenhouse, the esteemed legal affairs commentator of The New York Times, says she will boycott Arizona because, she says, it's now a police state where, "breathing while undocumented" is a crime.

All this is in reaction mainly to two passages of the new Arizona immigration law

One provides when police are engaged in "lawful contact" with someone where there is "reasonable suspicion" the person is an illegal alien, that the police shall make a "reasonable attempt... when practicable" to determine the person's immigration status.

The other provision makes it a crime to be in Arizona illegally. This is the part that Greenhouse says makes breathing while undocumented a crime.

But it's already a federal crime to enter the U.S. illegally. The new law just makes it a state crime, to.

As for the charge police will now make random demands of Hispanics to produce their papers, the bill's authors say that the requirement that there first be "lawful contact" means situations where someone has already been stopped for other law enforcement reasons.

In fact, once you actually read this law, it becomes clear the fuss over it has little to do with breathing in Arizona and a lot to do with hyperventilating in Washington.

— Brit Hume is the senior political analyst for Fox News Channel.

George Will on Arizona's Immigration Law

From the Washington Post

A Law Arizona Can Live With.



By George F. Will
Wednesday, April 28, 2010

"Misguided and irresponsible" is how Arizona's new law pertaining to illegal immigration is characterized by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She represents San Francisco, which calls itself a "sanctuary city," an exercise in exhibitionism that means it will be essentially uncooperative regarding enforcement of immigration laws. Yet as many states go to court to challenge the constitutionality of the federal mandate to buy health insurance, scandalized liberals invoke 19th-century specters of "nullification" and "interposition," anarchy and disunion. Strange.

It is passing strange for federal officials, including the president, to accuse Arizona of irresponsibility while the federal government is refusing to fulfill its responsibility to control the nation's borders. Such control is an essential attribute of national sovereignty. America is the only developed nation that has a 2,000-mile border with a developing nation, and the government's refusal to control that border is why there are an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona and why the nation, sensibly insisting on first things first, resists "comprehensive" immigration reform.

Arizona's law makes what is already a federal offense -- being in the country illegally -- a state offense. Some critics seem not to understand Arizona's right to assert concurrent jurisdiction. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund attacks Gov. Jan Brewer's character and motives, saying she "caved to the radical fringe." This poses a semantic puzzle: Can the large majority of Arizonans who support the law be a "fringe" of their state?

Popularity makes no law invulnerable to invalidation. Americans accept judicial supervision of their democracy -- judicial review of popular but possibly unconstitutional statutes -- because they know that if the Constitution is truly to constitute the nation, it must trump some majority preferences. The Constitution, the Supreme Court has said, puts certain things "beyond the reach of majorities."

But Arizona's statute is not presumptively unconstitutional merely because it says that police officers are required to try to make "a reasonable attempt" to determine the status of a person "where reasonable suspicion exists" that the person is here illegally. The fact that the meaning of "reasonable" will not be obvious in many contexts does not make the law obviously too vague to stand. The Bill of Rights -- the Fourth Amendment -- proscribes "unreasonable searches and seizures." What "reasonable" means in practice is still being refined by case law -- as is that amendment's stipulation that no warrants shall be issued "but upon probable cause." There has also been careful case-by-case refinement of the familiar and indispensable concept of "reasonable suspicion."

Brewer says, "We must enforce the law evenly, and without regard to skin color, accent or social status." Because the nation thinks as Brewer does, airport passenger screeners wand Norwegian grandmothers. This is an acceptable, even admirable, homage to the virtue of "evenness" as we seek to deter violence by a few, mostly Middle Eastern, young men.

Some critics say Arizona's law is unconstitutional because the 14th Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection of the laws" prevents the government from taking action on the basis of race. Liberals, however, cannot comfortably make this argument because they support racial set-asides in government contracting, racial preferences in college admissions, racial gerrymandering of legislative districts and other aspects of a racial spoils system. Although liberals are appalled by racial profiling, some seem to think vocational profiling (police officers are insensitive incompetents) is merely intellectual efficiency, as is state profiling (Arizonans are xenophobic).

Probably 30 percent of Arizona's residents are Hispanic. Arizona police officers, like officers everywhere, have enough to do without being required to seek arrests by violating settled law with random stops of people who speak Spanish. In the practice of the complex and demanding craft of policing, good officers -- the vast majority -- routinely make nuanced judgments about when there is probable cause for acting on reasonable suspicions of illegality.

Arizona's law might give the nation information about whether judicious enforcement discourages illegality. If so, it is a worthwhile experiment in federalism.

Non-Hispanic Arizonans of all sorts live congenially with all sorts of persons of Hispanic descent. These include some whose ancestors got to Arizona before statehood -- some even before it was a territory. They were in America before most Americans' ancestors arrived. Arizonans should not be judged disdainfully and from a distance by people whose closest contacts with Hispanics are with fine men and women who trim their lawns and put plates in front of them at restaurants, not with illegal immigrants passing through their back yards at 3 a.m.

Brewer Best Republican To Beat Goddard.

Recent polls numbers released April 27 from Public Policy Polling show that Arizona Governor Jan Brewer is not only the leading candidate for the GOP nomination but she is also the strongest Republican candidate to run against the presumptive Democrat Party nominee, Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard.

In match-ups between Goddard and each of the leading GOP contenders, Brewer polled 44% to 47% for Goddard. Mills, Martin and, Munger were all far behind Goddard in the poll.

Poll results show Buz Mills, who has spent over $1.2 million on TV ads, trailing Goddard 37% to 45%, followed by Arizona Treasurer Dean Martin who trailed Goddard 36% to 47%. In last place against Goddard is John Munger, who polled 31% to 46% for Goddard.

The Public Policy Poll showed Brewer favored by 73% of Republicans. With the support of over two-thirds and close to three-fourths of Republicans, it's fair to say that Jan Brewer is now the presumptive Republican nominee for governor in 2010.

It may be time for Mills, Martin and, Munger to gracefully bow out of the race and support the conservative Republican with the best change of keeping the Ninth floor in Republican hands, our Governor, Jan Brewer.

Further division within the GOP will only help turn the governor's office over to Goddard and the liberal Democrats.

Bob Haran,
American Conservative Republican.

How Mexico Treats Illegal Aliens

How Mexico Treats Illegal Aliens

by Michelle Malkin


04/28/2010




Mexican President Felipe Calderon has accused Arizona of opening the door "to intolerance, hate, discrimination and abuse in law enforcement." But Arizona has nothing on Mexico when it comes to cracking down on illegal aliens. While open-borders activists decry new enforcement measures signed into law in "Nazi-zona" last week, they remain deaf, dumb or willfully blind to the unapologetically restrictionist policies of our neighbors to the south.



The Arizona law bans sanctuary cities that refuse to enforce immigration laws, stiffens penalties against illegal alien day laborers and their employers, makes it a misdemeanor for immigrants to fail to complete and carry an alien registration document, and allows the police to arrest immigrants unable to show documents proving they are in the U.S. legally.

If those rules constitute the racist, fascist, xenophobic, inhumane regime that the National Council of La Raza, Al Sharpton, Catholic bishops and their grievance-mongering followers claim, then what about these regulations and restrictions imposed on foreigners?

-- The Mexican government will bar foreigners if they upset "the equilibrium of the national demographics." How's that for racial and ethnic profiling?

-- If outsiders do not enhance the country's "economic or national interests" or are "not found to be physically or mentally healthy," they are not welcome. Neither are those who show "contempt against national sovereignty or security." They must not be economic burdens on society and must have clean criminal histories. Those seeking to obtain Mexican citizenship must show a birth certificate, provide a bank statement proving economic independence, pass an exam and prove they can provide their own health care.

-- Illegal entry into the country is equivalent to a felony punishable by two years' imprisonment. Document fraud is subject to fine and imprisonment; so is alien marriage fraud. Evading deportation is a serious crime; illegal re-entry after deportation is punishable by ten years' imprisonment. Foreigners may be kicked out of the country without due process and the endless bites at the litigation apple that illegal aliens are afforded in our country (see, for example, President Obama's illegal alien aunt -- a fugitive from deportation for eight years who is awaiting a second decision on her previously rejected asylum claim).

-- Law enforcement officials at all levels -- by national mandate -- must cooperate to enforce immigration laws, including illegal alien arrests and deportations. The Mexican military is also required to assist in immigration enforcement operations. Native-born Mexicans are empowered to make citizens' arrests of illegal aliens and turn them in to authorities.

-- Ready to show your papers? Mexico's National Catalog of Foreigners tracks all outside tourists and foreign nationals. A National Population Registry tracks and verifies the identity of every member of the population, who must carry a citizens' identity card. Visitors who do not possess proper documents and identification are subject to arrest as illegal aliens.

All of these provisions are enshrined in Mexico's Ley General de Población (General Law of the Population) and were spotlighted in a 2006 research paper published by the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Security Policy. There's been no public clamor for "comprehensive immigration reform" in Mexico, however, because pro-illegal alien speech by outsiders is prohibited.

Consider: Open-borders protesters marched freely at the Capitol building in Arizona, comparing GOP Gov. Jan Brewer to Hitler, waving Mexican flags, advocating that demonstrators "Smash the State," and holding signs that proclaimed "No human is illegal" and "We have rights."

But under the Mexican constitution, such political speech by foreigners is banned. Noncitizens cannot "in any way participate in the political affairs of the country." In fact, a plethora of Mexican statutes enacted by its congress limit the participation of foreign nationals and companies in everything from investment, education, mining and civil aviation to electric energy and firearms. Foreigners have severely limited private property and employment rights (if any).

As for abuse, the Mexican government is notorious for its abuse of Central American illegal aliens who attempt to violate Mexico's southern border. The Red Cross has protested rampant Mexican police corruption, intimidation and bribery schemes targeting illegal aliens there for years. Mexico didn't respond by granting mass amnesty to illegal aliens, as it is demanding that we do. It clamped down on its borders even further. In late 2008, the Mexican government launched an aggressive deportation plan to curtain illegal Cuban immigration and human trafficking through Cancun.

Meanwhile, Mexican consular offices in the United States have coordinated with left-wing social justice groups and the Catholic Church leadership to demand a moratorium on all deportations and a freeze on all employment raids across America.

Mexico is doing the job Arizona is now doing -- a job the U.S. government has failed miserably to do: putting its people first. Here's the proper rejoinder to all the hysterical demagogues in Mexico (and their sympathizers here on American soil) now calling for boycotts and invoking Jim Crow laws, apartheid and the Holocaust because Arizona has taken its sovereignty into its own hands:

Hipócritas.

BREWER CLEAR LEADER WITH REPUBLICAN VOTERS

According to the latest Rasmussen poll of 510 likely Republican primary voters, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer is the clear leader for the Republican nomination for governor.

Poll results show 26% of Republican voters supporting Jan Brewer with millionaire Buz Mills, who has spent over $1.2 million on TV ads in second place , 8 points behind Brewer with 18% support.

Former Arizona Board of Regents president John Munger of Tucson improved his support with Republican voters and came in third with 14% support, up from 10% in March.

Arizona Treasurer Dean Martin has dropped from third to fourth place with 12% support, down from 21% in March.

Brewer became governor when former Governor Janet Napolitano resigned in January 2009 and went to Washington to serve as President Obama's Secretary of Homeland Security.

After taking the oath of office, Brewer was confronted with a state budget out of balance with increased spending and reduced revenue.

Brewer showed she had the guts to govern and immediately went to work to craft a solution which required very large and unpopular reductions in state spending.

Jan Brewer accepted reality, budget cuts alone would not be enough to balance the budget, and she announced that nothing was off the table, including the need to increase revenue to the state in order to provide a minimum of essential governmental services and a balanced budget. Some Republican members of the legislature didn't want to accept reality however, they would not under any circumstances vote to increase any tax regardless of how serious the budget situation was for Arizona.

Republicans by nature are for less government and less taxes and that has been the position of Jan Brewer throughout her long career in public service.

When Napolitano went to Washington she left Brewer with the tab for years of a growing state budget and no way to pay for it without large tax increases. Brewer is not one to pass the buck however and sponsored a plan that was hailed by the Wall Street Journal as, "a budget breakthrough for state government and an alternative to the California tax and spend model."

The plan was to repeal the hated tax on business property, provide one of the largest corporate tax cuts in the nation from 6.97% to 4.86%, and cut all individual income tax rates by 6.6%. Those cuts would have stimulated economic growth in Arizona and in the long run would have increased revenue to the state. To handle the immediate problem of inadequate income to balance the budget, in addition to massive cuts, the governor and Republican legislative leadership agreed to refer a temporary one cent sales tax increase to the voters.

The Arizona House of Representatives approved the plan but when the legislation got to the Arizona Senate, it ran into serious trouble. Two extremist and irresponsible Republican Senators, Pamela Gorman and Ron Gould, broke ranks with the GOP and voted with the Democrats against the sales tax referral, which killed the Republican budget agreement.

Gorman resigned as the Republican Senate Whip and later resigned from the Arizona Senate to run full time for the congressional seat held by retiring Congressman John Shadegg.

Ron Gould is still making noise in the Senate but has been removed from any leadership position.

Brewer stuck to her guns and eventually the Arizona Legislature accepted reality and referred the temporary sales tax increase to the voters to decide.

While Brewer was displaying extraordinary political courage by putting the people of Arizona before herself and fighting for the unpopular but necessary sales tax increase, other Republicans were taking advantage of the situation and putting themselves first in an attempt to advance their own political careers.

No one wants a tax increase, not you, not me, and certainly not Jan Brewer, but the state budget must be balanced and the people will tolerate only a certain amount of cuts in state services. Brewer has had to make the tough decisions on what to cut and by how much and how to enhance state revenue without taking too much from the taxpayers. She decided to ask the voters for a penny increase in the sales tax temporarily to help fund; education, health and, public safety.

Mills, Munger and Martin, have decided to show no leadership and attacked Brewer for having the courage to lead, telling the people the truth, and doing what is necessary to solve Arizona's budget crisis. The 3M candidates, Mills, Munger, and Martin have showed that they are Missing what Brewer has, the guts to govern and make the tough decisions a governor must make.

On this one issue alone, Brewer has proven that she is the only candidate worth supporting for governor and head and shoulders above the 3M candidates who attack her for providing the leadership Arizona needs.

Mills, Munger, and Martin have decided on a campaign strategy of telling the loudest and most radical what they want to hear, stick their heads in the sand and offer no leadership or real solution to the current budget crisis.

Their do nothing strategy doesn't seem to be working.

Bob Haran,
American Conservative Republican