Senator Russell Pearce predicts Supreme Court will uphold SB1070

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 7, 2012
CONTACT: Sen. Russell Pearce

Ban Amnesty Now president says America’s highest court will not turn back on states’ rights

PHOENIX—Senator Russell Pearce, the author of SB1070 and newly-appointed president of America’s largest grassroots anti-illegal immigration organization, said today the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to hear arguments on Arizona’s contested SB1070 legislation was great news for every legal U.S. citizen.

“When the activist judges in lower federal courts bowed to Barack Obama’s whims and put illegal aliens ahead of American citizens, undermined the Rule of Law, they followed in the president’s footsteps in perpetrating a great injustice against our nation, our citizens Constitutional rights and the state of Arizona,” said Pearce.

“We are a nation of fifty sovereign U.S. states, not a nation of 50 subservient states to be dictated to by a Big Brother leviathan. When the Supreme Court rules, I expect that Washington will learn an important lesson in its proper role, not just on immigration but in its role in governance,” Pearce said.

“We send far too much money to Washington for this to be the treatment we get in return. Sovereign U.S. states and legal U.S. citizens were never meant by our Founding Fathers to become penniless orphans in some Twilight Zone version of a Charles Dickens story, begging for scraps from an all-powerful, dictatorial federal government which waves full ladles of nourishment above our heads but never pours anything into our bowls,” said Pearce.

“When the Court rules, I expect power to return to the states, and Ban Amnesty Now by then will be working diligently to pass SB1070-style legislation in all 50 states, like Alabama, South Carolina and Georgia already have” he said. “The president can sue every state if he pleases, or he can get out of the way while we do the job Washington won’t in protecting our great nation from illegal aliens.

“I fully expect we, the legal citizens of Arizona and America, will win in the Supreme Court on SB1070, just as we did with Arizona’s Employers Sanction Law, the toughest in the nation, which goes after illegal employers and protects American jobs and was upheld five-to-three in the Supreme Court,” said Pearce.

While 6 of the 10 provisions of SB1070 were upheld, four main provisions of the contested SB1070 were blocked from implementation by lower courts, including:

(1) requiring law enforcement officers to make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there is reasonable suspicion that person is an illegal alien;

(2) creating a crime of failure to apply for or carry “alien-registration papers”;

(3) permitting the arrest of an illegal alien in which there is probable cause to believe the individual committed a public offense that makes him or her removable from the U.S.; and,

(4) making it a crime for illegal aliens to solicit, apply for or perform work.

“America is greater than any one man, than any one president,” said Pearce. “I believe the court will rule on the side of law, our Constitution, and states’ rights, and that we will prove our nation can indeed work again. This will be an important ruling, an important milestone, in a long road ahead to restoring the rule of law, America’s economy, political and national security.”

# # #


Comments

  1. LEO IN TSN says

    Great patriotic words from a great American patriot. Thank you, Sen. Pearce, for your longstanding and continuing service to Arizona and America.

    These are words that will never be uttered by the stand-up comedian that the quislings and dimocrats have sent to our Senate from that east valley district. Fact-be-known, these words, and more to come, will make them all squirm & squeal. Take that, Jeffie McFlake.

    God bless America, and the patriots who carry on the fight to preserve and protect her.

  2. The article lists “Sen. Russell Pearce” as contact.
    I looked at the current list of legislators and I see no Senator Russell Pearce.
    Nor could I find anyone with the same name who was listed as retired.

    I searched and found there is a Former Senator Russell Pearce who was recalled.
    By an overwhelming majority of voters in the district he represented.

    Is this the same person?

    If so, could he explain how many employers have been charged and prosecuted under the Employers Sanction Law, “the toughest in the nation”? I’m not seeming to find many in my searches.

    • Conservative American says

      Rob wrote: “If so, could he explain how many employers have been charged and prosecuted under the Employers Sanction Law, “the toughest in the nation”? I’m not seeming to find many in my searches.”

      That sounds very damning, Rob, but is it?

      The stated purpose of Arizona’s immigration related laws was to provide disincentives for illegal aliens to come to Arizona and incentives for those illegal aliens already here to leave.

      It was not a stated goal of Arizona’s immigration related laws to impose as many employer sanctions as possible. The idea was that the employer sanctions and the mandated use of E-Verify in the Legal Arizona Workers Act would provide disincentives sufficiently potent that little or no enforcement efforts would be necessary. That is what was brilliant about the legislation. The objective of reducing the number of illegal aliens in Arizona could be accomplished without the costs of enforcement and prosecution. Illegal aliens would simply choose, on their own, to not come to Arizona and those already here would choose, of their own accord, to leave.

      A high number of employer sanctions and prosecutions would mean that the underlying strategy had failed, not that it was successful. So the lack of sanctions and prosecutions which you cite are an indication of success, not failure.

      It was only in May of last year that lawsuits against the employer sanctions and mandated use of E-Verify in the Legal Arizona Workers Act were finally put to rest when SCOTUS found thoe provisions to be constitutional, as did the U. S. District Court and the 9th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

      As regards the effectiveness of the Legal Arizona Workers act in accomplishing it’s stated goals, I refer you to this study:

      http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_311MLR.pdf

      To cut to the chase, the study concludes that: “We estimate LAWA’s impact to date to be a loss of approximately 92,000 unauthorized immigrants, representing a decline of about 17 percent.”

      That was accomplished by the incentive and disincentive effects of the Legal Arizona Workers Act rather than through costly enforcement and prosecution.

      • “The idea was that the employer sanctions and the mandated use of E-Verify in the Legal Arizona Workers Act ….”

        Ahhhh…could you enlighten me as to what agency was tasked with enforcement of E-Verify?
        What said agency is doing towards ensuring compliance?
        What are the penalties for non-compliance?
        How many business have been cited for non-compliance?

        • Conservative American says

          Apparently you haven’t actually read what I wrote, Rob.

          As stated above, the point was not to engage in all sorts of enforcement and prosecution efforts but rather to provide a disincentive for illegal aliens to come to Arizona, an incentive for those already here to leave and a disincentive for employers to hire illegal aliens.

          According to the study I cited above, that strategy has been effective, with 92,000 illegal aliens leaving the state without a lot of costly enforcement and prosecution efforts. So enforcement is not a measure of the success of the legislation. Illegal aliens choosing to leave the state of their own accord is a measure of the success of the legislation.

          If you want documentation of all of the areas of effectiveness of the Legal Arizona Workers Act, read the study:

          http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_311MLR.pdf

          • Well, wouldn’t the citizens of Arizona be thrilled to know, ConAm, that our fine legislators drafted and created a law that they had no intention of enforcing but created it rather to “scare” people.

            And they’ll be thrilled to know that the state was so intent on “scaring” people that they went through the time and enormous expense of pushing it to the Supreme Court.

            And after getting validation from SCOTUS they can “scare” more people.

            Oh, by the way….you might want to inform Recalled Former Senate President Pearce about that CA…after all, he wrote just a few inches above us…..”Arizona’s Employers Sanction Law, the toughest in the nation,which goes after illegal employers”.

            • Conservative American says

              ROFL! I just love it when you go all liberal on us, LOL! 🙂

              I think that the citizens of Arizona are thrilled to know that the Legal Arizona Workers Act scares away those who would illegally enter The United States by crossing Arizona’s international border.

              I think that the citizens of Arizona are also thrilled that the Legal Arizona Workers Act has already scared 92,000 illegal aliens out of Arizona.

              Hopefully, many of our laws scare those who would break them sufficiently to cause them to not violate the law. That is one of the intended effects of laws, not just to punish, but to deter.

              Now let me see if I understand you correctly, Rob. You are upset because, from your perspective, there isn’t enough enforcement of the Legal Arizona Workers Act. So what you are demanding is more enforcement. Is that right, Rob?

              Rob wrote: “And after getting validation from SCOTUS they can “scare” more people.”

              Well gee, Rob, that IS how our country works. Lawsuits are settled in the courts and some go all the way to SCOTUS which renders an ultimate decision. You don’t care for that democratic process? How would you resolve legal matters? Is it your desire to replace SCOTUS so that you can rule on all legal matters? You have something against the rule of law?

              The Legal Arizona Workers Act does “go after” illegal employers as all employers are required to use E-Verify. As I have repeatedly stated, the objective of the Legal Arizona Workers Act was not to generate enforcement actions and prosecutions but rather to reduce the number of illegal aliens coming to an remaining in Arizona.

              When those who were knowingly hiring illegal aliens cease to do so and comply with the E-Verify provision of the Legal Arizona Workers Act, they have been “gone after”, simply by means other than law enforcement action and prosecution.

              Here is a partial list of Arizona employers with five or more employees who have registered for E-Verify with the Deparment of Homeland Security:

              http://www.azag.gov/LegalAZWorkersAct/EVerify_All.pdf

              That is called “cooperation” or “compliance with the law”.

              It seems that what you are craving is that Arizona employers do not comply with the law so that law enforcement can go after them and prosecute them. In other words, you are wishing for violations of the law. That’s pretty sick, even for a liberal, LOL!

              • So….with this one statement, CA “The Legal Arizona Workers Act does “go after” illegal employers as all employers are required to use E-Verify” you invalidate your convoluted ramblings.

                And, I’ll ask you again, particularly in light of the above statement….

                What agency did the legislature task with ensuring employers are using E-Verify?

              • Conservative American says

                Let’s take it again from the top.

                The stated purpose of Arizona’s immigration related laws was not to maximize law enforcement actions or prosecutions. The purpose was to discourage illegal aliens from coming to Arizona, discourage those already here from remaining in Arizona and to reduce or elimate the magnet of jobs for them here in Arizona.

                As a result of the Legal Arizona Workers Act, 92,000 illegal aliens have already VOLUNTARILY left Arizona. That is precisely the effect which the law sought to bring about. You can read about the effectiveness of the Legal Arizona Workers act in that area, and in other areas, in this study:

                http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_311MLR.pdf

                The law works, It is having it’s intended effect. That fact renders your arguments and your concerns moot. The Legal Arizona Workers Act was not passed to meet the liberal idiosyncracies of Rob or any other lberal. It was passed to reduce the number of illegal aliens in Arizona. It is accomplishing it’s intended purpose.

                Rob, don’t even try with that, “And, I’ll ask you again…” crapola. I’ll ask YOU again.

                You wrote this: “And after getting validation from SCOTUS they can “scare” more people.”

                If you don’t like the fact that we have a Supreme Court of The United States which is the ultimate arbiter of legal matters, how do YOU propose that The United States should resolve legal issues?

                Have a nice day, Rob! 🙂

              • Didn’t seem to bother Matt Tolman.
                Hasn’t seem to bother the business we see Arpaio go into every 2 or 3 months and pull out a few busboys, dry cleaners or pipe fitters. Arpaio ensures that there’s plenty of documentation for that.

                There’s still in the neighborhood of 300,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona; the bulk are in Maricopa County. You can make all sorts of claims as to what Employer Sanctions has done; then you’ll turn around and attribute those same effects to SB1070. All the while you’ll discount the economic meltdown which has been shown to have the primary driving factor in pushing illegal immigrants out.

                As the good conservative you claim to be, ConAm, to push that Employer Sanctions was law that they never intended to enforce doesn’t sound good. What’s the point in creating a law that won’t be enforced. Oh yeah, “to scare people”.

                Going after business that hire illegal immigrants would do far more towards solving the issue than anything else we can currently do.

              • Conservative American says

                ROFL! Oh, oh, oh! Typical liberal tripe, LOL! 🙂

                You wrote this: “There’s still in the neighborhood of 300,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona; the bulk are in Maricopa County.”

                You wouldn’t mind terribly citing the source of that figure, would you? Thank you very much, Rob!

                Rob wrote: “All the while you’ll discount the economic meltdown which has been shown to have the primary driving factor in pushing illegal immigrants out.”

                ROFL! Oh, this is just too rich! 🙂

                First of all, now you’re into predicting what I will do rather than what I have actually done. Secondly, I’ve already addressed that issue. Where have I addressed it?

                I’ve provided you with this link to a study several times already. Obviously you are so concerned with seeking to “prove” your point, at all costs, that you haven’t bothered to read it. Here is the link again, yet ONE MORE time:

                http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_311MLR.pdf

                If you had read the study you would have seen that the effects of the “economic meltdown” were taken into account. How was that done? It was done by comparing the reduction in the illegal alien population in Arizona with the reduction in the illegal alien population in California and the reduction in the illegal alien population in all states. This evened the playing field regarding the “economic meltdown” and still Arizona had the greatest reduction, compared with California and all states, in illegal aliens following the implementation of the Legal Arizona Workers Act. Duh!

                Rob wrote: “…then you’ll turn around and attribute those same effects to SB1070.”

                Yet once again, Rob, you are seeking to predict what I will do rather than addressing anything which I have done. When liberals are cornered by the facts, they turn to creating future fantasy worlds where their arguments can prevail. You wouldn’t mind too much sticking to facts and reality, would you, Rob?

                Rob wrote: “As the good conservative you claim to be, ConAm, to push that Employer Sanctions was law that they never intended to enforce doesn’t sound good.”

                It’s irrelevant whether it “sounds good” to you or not, Rob. The Legal Arizona Workers Act was designed to get illegal aliens to leave Arizona voluntarily and to discourage an influx of new illegal aliens into the state by removing the incentive of jobs.

                We know that at least 92,000 illegal aliens have left Arizona due to the Legal Arizona Workers Act. In addition, we have the following:

                “In the state, the number of employers registered with E-Verify increased from fewer than 300 in March 2007 to more than 38,000 in January 2010. Arizona’s enrollment is estimated to represent over one-third of all employers nationwide registered in the system and at least one-quarter of all employers in the state. Arizona employers are more than twenty times more likely to enroll than employers in California.”

                http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_311MLR.pdf

                Rob wrote: “Going after business that hire illegal immigrants would do far more towards solving the issue than anything else we can currently do.”

                You consider “going after businesses” to be law enforcement action, prosecution and penalties. However, the Legal Arizona Workers Act has resulted in a decrease in the number of illegal aliens in Arizona by at least 92,000 and Arizona employers registered for E-Verify account for one-third of all employers NATIONWIDE registered in the system. What is your definition of “success” with regard to reducing the number of illegal aliens in Arizona and for reducing the employment opportunities for them in Arizona?

                With all of your emphasis on enforcement and prosecution under the Legal Arizona Workers Act, you DO completely support reducing the number of illegal aliens in Arizona, don’t you? Well, do you, Rob?

    • You are obviously a California transplant. They tend to be dense due to the cesspool the illegals created there. But Senator Pearce exists and will always be our savior. Arizona would be as bad or worst than California were it not for him. But how would you know? You have to be an outsider to Arizona. Do us a
      favor, go to Utah, or back to the cesspool in CA Randy.

      • Really, Angee?

        What a well thought out response.

        St. Josephs Hospital, Phoenix, Arizona, 1964.
        Been here ever since.

        Wanna try again?

  3. Chandler Right says

    Why are we pissing and moaning about these two? Both good conservatives put in a bad spot by IRC. David lives there, has always lived there. Most of the district is the district that elected Ben. Both have good reason to run there. May the best man win there is no bad guy here.

  4. Raising Arizona says

    We will see what the SC thinks of Arizona sovereignty. I think 1070 will be struck down for several reasons. Immigration is not the right arena for a states’ rights battle. It is a strictly federal domain, and RP should ready himself to eat another big helping of humble crow pie.

    • Conservative American says

      RA wrote: “Immigration is not the right arena for a states’ rights battle. It is a strictly federal domain…”

      That was Obama’s contention which was refuted by the U. S. District Court, the 9th U. S.Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of The United States in the Legal Arizona Workers Act case. So all of those courts say that your assertion is wrong.

      • Raising Arizona says

        Gee wiz, CA. I stand corrected. I forgot that Arizona has been bravely guarding our borders from marauding Nevadans, Californians, and especially those slightly browner New Mexicans. By the way, my compliments for actually doing a little research. Usually by now you are well into your usual personal attacks and childish insults. Bravo!

        • Conservative American says

          RA wrote: “Gee wiz, CA. I stand corrected.”

          You most certainly do, Ollie, LOL! 🙂

          RA wrote this: ” I forgot that Arizona has been bravely guarding our borders from marauding Nevadans, Californians, and especially those slightly browner New Mexicans.”

          Followed by this: “Usually by now you are well into your usual personal attacks and childish insults. Bravo!”

          Does self-contradiction come naturally for you or did you have to cultivate it?

          Have a nice day, RA! 🙂

        • Well, when California or New Mexico or any other state begins regulating business’ and their licensing in Arizona then maybe, I guess. Or when Arizona begins regulating business and their licensing in other states.

          Which is entirely where the Supes pointed in validating Employer Sanctions.

          Unfortunately, no state regulates immigration; it is the sole domain of Congress.

          This really isn’t hard to figure out.

          • Conservative American says

            You are seeking to create a strawman, Rob. A very pathetic attempt to to do so, I might add. The issue is not who regulates immigration.

            The first issue is whether or not states may participate in enforcing existing immigration law. Obama said that, under The Constitution, they may not, as enforcement of immigration law is the sole purview of the federal government. SCOTUS found that, as regards employer sanctions and mandated use of E-Verify, states may assist in enforcing existing immigration law.

            The second issue is whether or not states suffering tangible losses, as the result of the failure of the federal government to adequately enforce federal laws, may enact and enforce laws, in harmony with federal law, to protect and defend themselves from loss. It’s a states’ rights issue. At stake is whether the federal government can force states to suffer limitless tangible losses as a result of the federal government’s failure to adequately enforce federal law.

            The Supreme Court of The United States may determine the extent of states’ rights in that regard while determining whether or not a specific law or laws are, in fact, in harmony with or at odds with federal law. That is what is going to happen when SCOTUS hears SB1070 related issues.

            • Ummm….no, genius.

              It was you who made an attempt to drag the Employer Sanctions ruling in as a comparison and tie validation of it to a favorable ruling on SB1070.

              There is no correlation.

              • Conservative American says

                I’m a patient man and fully understand that you have a reading comprehension disability, Rob. Let me give you the “Cliff Notes” version: Your strawman failed.

                Have a nice day, Rob! 🙂

  5. I fully understand why some people can’t take Pearce seriously. And why some take him way too seriously. If you have at least an eighth grade education, with some proficiency in English, you’re in the first group. But if you respond positively to hyperbole, conspiracy theory, doublespeak, exaggeration, mixed metaphors, oddball capitalization, officiousness, paranoia, false analogy, and logical fallacies, you are in the second group.

Leave a Reply