Thread: Failed AZ HB2280/SB1175 Anti-Sanctuary Bill

Response from Russell Pearce 7/9/09
Concerning HB2280/SB1175 Anti-Sanctuary Bill
Please read – lengthy in detail but may give you a better understanding on how and why AZ Reps voted for or against this bill:

The spin stops here!!!! All I want is a firm understanding on where they stand and where will their vote be in the future. They will get another chance to vote on this critical issue. The courts have ruled time and time again local law enforcement has inherent authority to enforce immigration law. In fact 8 USC 1644 and 8 USC 1373 makes these sanctuary policies illegal under federal law.

Rep. Nancy Barto is a good woman, however she has been against local enforcement and we have had many discussions. She has family involved in the Interfaith Movement an open border group that protest on a regular basis against me, against Sheriff Joe and advocates for open borders, for Amnesty and they work with ACORN and other extreme left wing groups. I have a hard time to understand anyone not standing firmly for the Rule of Law and especially if one looks around at the Deaths, Maimings, and billions in cost to the taxpayer. It is in complete violation of their Oath of Office in my opinion.

Rep. John McComish is also a good man, but we differ on this issue.

Rep. Konopnicki was the lead in a Press Confernce against Prop. 200 to stop voter fraud and welfare fraud by illegals and fought be on the employer sanctions bill, but finally voted for it and then publically stated he wished he had not voted for it. Long time oppenent to enforcement of immigration laws.

Last January I put forth a Resolution on the removal of Sanctuary Cities/policies in this state and it passed "unanimously" at the State Republican Party Meeting and Maricopa County Republican Party Meeting. There were over 800 elected precinct committeemen and women at each of these meetings that represent the grassroots Republicans all across this state, these are our core Republicans and they made it loud and clear how they stand.

These folks are good Republicans, but simply weak on the most critical issue facing our nation, that is the enforcement by local law enforcement of immigration laws, and employing the most effective tool we have to stop this invasion by illegal aliens. What they are trying to say, simply is not true. My good friend Representative Boone's bill was watered down at the request of the Police Chief's Association, that have fought against me for years on the enforcement of our immigration laws. It was watered down to include an "intent" clause that would allow them to put conditions on them on when and where they can ask, which is being done now and allow them to only check when illegal aliens are arrested for another crime, which in Maricopa County Sheriff Joe does on every single person arrested and booked into jail; (another crime and another victim before anything would be done). It was unenforceable. All the Republicans mentioned as no votes or not voting at all have struggled with enforcement and have worked against it for years. Rep. Mason the exception perhaps. She told me she would have been a yes vote on the bill. I am not demeaning the character of these folks, but I must set the record straight.

HB2280 was well written and would have passed all court challenges as did my PROP. 200 (7 court challenges by the left and the Chamber of Commerce and I won 7 times), my Employer Sanctions (been to court 5 times and I won 5 times even in the 9th Circuit Court). These same silly and untrue arguments were used to get folks to not support Protect Arizona NOW (known as Prop. 200) and the employer sanctions law (The Fair and Legal Employment Act).

I will not support legislation that sounds good but changes nothing, no more wink and nod, our citizens deserve better and that is what the Boone bill did after the amendment was put on.

That is why my bill was endorsed by:
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe, Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas, Pinal Co. Sheriff Babeu, Az FOP, Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, Maricopa County Deputies Association, Border Patrol Officers Association, Arizona State Republican Party, Maricopa County Republican Party, Arizona Highway Patrol Association, two large Hispanic groups, Arizona African American Republican Club, Arizona Republican Assembly, The Pachyderms, NumbersUSA, F.A.I.R., and many more.

"Local Law Enforcement’s Inherent Authority of Immigration Law:"
Congress has firmly established that there is a significant public interest in the effective enforcement of immigration law. Congress could have chosen to limit local enforcement pursuant to its plenary power over immigration, but it has not done so. In the absence of a limitation on local enforcement powers, the states are bound by the Supremacy Clause of the United ‘States Constitution to enforce violations of the federal immigration laws. "The statutory law of the United States is part of the law of each state just as if it were written into state statutory law." States do not need a 287g, IGA, MOU or a permission slip to arrest illegal aliens. The 287g goes beyond the arrest powers as states already have inherent authority to make arrests.

In Sections 1324 the language that referred to officers "of the United States" when talking about authority to arrest was stricken from section 1324 by amendment. In People v. Baraja, a California court concluded, "that change can only mean that the scope of the arrest power under section 1324 was enlarged; in no way can it mean that the scope of arrest under the other two sections was restricted. Such an acute non sequitur would attribute to the Congress both serious inconsistency and profound lack of logic."

The arrest, detention, or transportation of aliens by local police enforcing criminal provisions of the INA is not a regulatory "determination" of the conditions of alien entrance and residency, but merely enforcement of the previously determined conditions. States can prosecute illegal aliens under state laws without running afoul of the INA. State and local laws do not attempt to regulate who may come to and stay in the U.S. , and thus do not impinge upon the federal government’s exclusive power to regulate immigration, even if they affect immigrants.

In 1999 a decision in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the independent authority of local police departments to enforce federal immigration law, as long as state law prescribing police power of arrest authorized such an arrest. The U.S. Dept. of Justice endorsed this doctrine in April 2002. Under Attorney General Ashcroft, the U.S. Dept. of Justice took the position that state and local police have inherent authority to enforce civil immigration laws.

Assistant Attorney General Kobach explained that the inherent arrest authority of states arises from their pre-constitutional status as sovereign entities. The powers retained by the states at the time of ratification proceeded "not from the people of the United States, but from the people of the several states," and remain unchanged, except as they have been "abridged" by the Constitution. The authority of a state to arrest for violations of federal law is thus not delegated; but "inheres in the ability of one sovereign to accommodate the interests of another sovereign." This federalism-based analysis has a strong judicial pedigree.

The courts also ruled (Miller v. U.S., 357 U.S. 301, 305(195 that a warrant less arrest "of an arrest for violation of federal law by state peace officers, …the lawfulness of the arrest without warrant is to be determined by reference to state law."

Sanctuary policies are illegal. Local, state, or federal government agencies that sanction or retaliate against employees or officials who report immigration law violations to ICE or the Border Patrol can be sued by the whistleblower under 8 U.S.C. 1373 or 8 U.S.C. 1644 for damages and costs.

Citizens have a constitutional right to expect the protection of federal laws which prohibit unauthorized activities by non-citizens are denied equal protection when a police department or magistrate acts in a manner that encourages or assists persons selected on the basis of nationality or alienage to engage in such unlawful activities.

No policy or humanitarian argument has been identified by the courts that would negate the criminal mens rea of reckless disregard for the fact that aliens are present in the United States in violation of law. Neither sanctuary nor humanitarian concern is a valid defense to either civil or criminal violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act. It is illegal for non-profit, religious, or civic organizations to knowingly assist in the commission of an alien smuggling felony, regardless of claims that their member’ convictions may require them to assist aliens. The First Amendment does not protect actions that aid illegal aliens to remain in the United States.

Illegal aliens are not a suspect class entitled to Fourteenth Amendment based strict scrutiny of any discriminatory classification based on that status, nor are they defined by an immutable characteristic, since their status is the product of conscious unlawful action.
A law enforcement officer has probable cause to detain an individual who admits he or she is an alien (legal or illegal) but is not in possession of registration documents. This is a crime that a warrant less arrest can be made in most jurisdictions.

The authority to make arrest for federal offenses under 18 U.S.C. 3041 extends to state and local law enforcement officers. (U.S. v Bowdach, 561 F.2d 1160, 1168 (5th Cir. 1977) An illegal alien is an inherent flight risk.

Supreme Court Ruling Razes Artificial Fire Wall Between Local Law Enforcement and Immigration Enforcement (Muehler v. Mena) 9-0 Landmark Decision (Washington D.C.—April 1, 2005) In its March 22 ruling in the case of Muehler v. Mena, the Supreme Court removed barriers that prevent local law enforcement officers from questioning the immigration status of individuals they suspect to be in the United States illegally. In this groundbreaking decision, the high Court rejected the claim of Ira Mena, a permanent resident of the U.S., that police had violated the Fourth Amendment while conducting a lawful search of her home.

The Fourth Amendment provides protection by establishing that persons be shielded against unreasonable search and seizure. Mena argued that by questioning her, and the illegal alien detainees about their immigration status during a lawful search, officers violated her Fourth Amendment rights. Mena further claimed that questions asked about her citizenship required officers to have had independent reasonable suspicion regarding the unlawfulness of her immigration status.

Calling a decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals "faulty," the Supreme Court held that "mere police questioning [regarding one’s immigration status] does not constitute a seizure." The Court continued its landmark ruling on this issue by stating that "the officers did not need reasonable suspicion to ask Mena for her name, date of birth, or immigration status."

"If local police are barred from cooperating with federal authorities in the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws it is purely a political decision on the part of local politicians and police chiefs. There is no legal barrier to local police inquiring about a person’s immigration status and then acting upon the information they gather."

Any decision by law enforcement not to enforce immigration laws is a political decision by politicians and local police chiefs, not a lack of authority.
U.S. Justice Dept. makes it clear local law enforcement can enforce immigration laws

Rep. Nancy Barto is a good woman, however she has been against local enforcement and we have had many discussions. She has family involved in the Interfaith Movement an open border group that protest on a regular basis against me


Any politican that does not protect the American people and enforce our immigration laws is NOT a good person, they are traitors to America and our way of life.

Pretty pathetic how much a politician that DOES want to protect us and this country has to do to plead and convince these idiots that what they are doing is inherently wrong. AND, all the justifications the idiots do to support NOT enforcing our laws.

There is something seriously wrong in the collective when this many people justify what is bad for man in general.

I moved to Arizona a little more than six years ago. There were two things that shocked me to the core. Number one was how illiterate the majority of the population is and number two was the level of dishonesty the average person accepted as normal. I'm trying to get out.