Sponsored by

Comments on

Az Dems: Romney, like Pearce, is immigration 'extremist'

Democrats seized on former state Sen. Russell Pearce’s recent claim that he and Mitt Romney have “identical” views on immigration to try to paint the GOP presidential hopeful as an “extremist” on immigration reform.... Read more»

have your say   

5 comments on this story

Apr 9, 2012, 2:12 pm
-1 +0

First off, Grijalva has zero credibility. Of the 485 Congressional districts in the country, the only one he has any chance in hell of being voted in is AZ CD7, and then the last time only barely, and then only because CD7 has too many bigots that can’t see past skin color.

That said, the author of this garbage piece contradicts himself. He calls Pearce an “extremist” when it comes to immigration reform, then he acknowledges that all Pearce wanted was the existing laws on the books to be enforced. Well, which is it?

Apr 9, 2012, 3:59 pm
-0 +1

@Bret Linden

You realize how quotes and paraphrases work in a news report, right? Where does the reporter characterize Pearce as an “extremist”? I see a news story where somebody else used that term, not the reporter.

Likewise, there’s not an “acknowledgment” of Pearce’s position; there’s a statement he himself made.

The idea that SB 1070 is merely a mirror of federal law is false, by the way. It gave local police broad new powers (and mandates) to perform investigations into immigration status where there were none, in addition to creating new state crimes related to employment and solicitation of work.

You might agree with those policies, but the statute went much farther than restating federal laws.

Apr 9, 2012, 8:44 pm
-0 +0

SB1070 didn’t give local cops more powers then they already have…even Dupnik admits that. But, mandate yes. They no longer have the option to blow off running in a border jumper under the law…now they must.

And, about the new state crimes you mention…aren’t those the only parts of it that activist judge Susan Bolton left alone?

Most opponents of SB1070 keep telling me how it conflicts with federal law, yet they won’t tell me exactly which federal law it conflicts with. I’d really like them to spell it out for me because I just can’t figure it out. If someone could provide links to the federal laws it conflicts with I’d be grateful…but I’m not holding my breath, because I don’t think it’s there.

Apr 9, 2012, 9:00 pm
-0 +0

@Bret Linden

Well, for starters there’s the constitutional preemption of immigration laws in favor of the federal government. While that’s not a 100 percent prohibition on immigration-related state laws, it’s a pretty high hurdle. California’s attempt at a similar law failed at the appeals court level for that reason, and the state chose not to pursue the case to the Supreme Court.

For more, see this Factcheck.

Apr 9, 2012, 9:40 pm
-0 +0

@Dylan Smith

That’s still not a contradiction. Really, it’s not.

If federal said x and state law said y, then that would be a contradiction. But what we have here is federal law saying x, state law saying that federal law says x, and the feds basically saying “yeah, yeah, we know the law says x, but we’re disregarding it and so should you.”

If you read 1070, you will see that the real key for the feds to defeat this law is to change their own immigration laws. This is much closer to the ethical solution anyway. Having laws that you don’t enforce seems senseless and hypocritical. Selectively enforcing laws is a sixth amendment violation. If Obama and his open border buddies don’t like immigration laws, the solution is not to just ignore them and hope states follow suit…and the solution is certainly not to get Congress’ most slovenly member to hit the media and distort, spin, and outright lie about the issue…the solution for them is to get the laws changed to something they can live with. 1070 just calls for enforcement of federal immigration laws…despite the heavy media spin to the contrary, it doesn’t spell out what those laws are or should be.

I’d like someone on the other side of the issue to just explain to me why it’s too much to expect people to immigrate here legally. Gabby Saucedo-Mercer did. Just sayin’...

Sorry, we missed your input...

You must be logged in or register to comment

Click to enlarge

Cronkite NewsWatch

Former state Sen. Russell Pearce, author of the state’s high-profile immigration law, SB 1070, reportedly said GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney’s immigration stance is 'identical to mine.' Pearce is shown here in November during a recall election that he lost, largely because of the issue.


news, politics & government, border, local, arizona, breaking, Cronkite News
Sponsored by

Top Commenters

  • Bret Linden: 1765
  • Dylan Smith: 537
  • Cactus Dave: 339
  • buddhaboy: 316
  • Roberto De Vido: 270
  • Brittanicus: 176
  • Quietwoman2: 172
  • EllieMae: 145
  • TucsonGirl: 116
  • janamg: 88
Sponsored by


I want to help TucsonSentinel.com offer a real news alternative!

We're committed to making quality news accessible; we'll never set up a paywall or charge for our site. But we rely on your support to bring you independent news without the spin. Use our convenient PayPal/credit card donation form below or contact us at donate@tucsonsentinel.com today.

Subscribe and stretch your donation over time:

$10/mo. Printer's Devil
$15/mo. Cub Reporter
$20/mo. Stringer
$40/mo. Correspondent
$50/mo. Senior Correspondent
Enter your own monthly amount (number only)

Or give a secure one-time gift with PayPal or your credit card:

$5,000 Newshound
$2,500 Copy desk chief
$1,000 Trusted source
$500 Correspondent
$250 Stringer
$100 Cub reporter
$50 Printer's Devil
$25 Informed Source
$10 Dear Reader
Enter your own amount (below)

TucsonSentinel.com is an Arizona nonprofit organization fiscally sponsored by FCIR.org, a 501c3 charity. Your contribution is tax-deductible.

User Guidelines

Please be respectful and relevant. Thought-provoking. Or at least funny.

We want comments to advance the discussion and we need your help. Debate, disagree, yell (digitally) or laugh, but do it with respect.

We won't censor your comments if we don't agree with you; we want viewpoints from across the political spectrum. We're dedicated to sparking an open, active discussion. We believe people with differing opinions can spark debate and effect change.

Comments are open to registered users of TucsonSentinel.com.

Keep in mind:

  • A conversation involves sharing and respect. Support your viewpoint with facts, not attacks.
  • Ask questions. Search out answers.
  • Remember that being part of a community requires tolerance for differing views.
  • We can't ensure that all comments are based in truth. The only comments we endorse are those we write ourselves.

TucsonSentinel.com does not allow:

  • Hate speech. Blatantly racist, sexist or homophobic slurs or calls for violence against a particular type of person, etc. will be removed.
  • Obscenity & excessive cursing. Sometimes a well-placed curse word - if you're creative enough to get it past our auto-censor - can express your point in just the right way. But we say '%*$& no' to cursing for cursing's sake. And lose the explicit sexually-descriptive language. It doesn't contribute to the debate and there are plenty of other places on the Internet to find it.
  • Flaming. During a heated discussion, unkind words may be spoken. We can live with a certain amount of rudeness in the name of provocative conversation, but a pattern of personal attacks (name-calling, mocking, or baiting) is not acceptable nor are threatening or harassing comments. Show some respect, please.
  • Explicit political endorsements. As a nonprofit we can't allow electioneering. Analysis and explanation of political issues and candidates are encouraged, but specific calls to vote for or against a measure or politician should be done elsewhere.
  • Spam. Solicitation of products or services isn't allowed; contact us about advertising, we'd love to talk to you. Links to off-topic sites may be deleted.
  • Copyright or IP infringement. Lengthy quotes and violations of 'Fair Use' aren't allowed. Anything you post should be your own work.
  • Overposting. Don't bore people and waste electrons with identical comments on multiple stories or repetitive comments that don't advance a conversation.
  • Trolling, sockpuppetry, and other abusive behavior. Please don't feed the trolls and don't pretend to be someone you're not.
  • Gossip. Don't bring up others who can't defend themselves. We don't give out personal information; you shouldn't either.

Comments that violate these guidelines may be removed. We reserve the right to make up the rules as we go along.


Commentors are solely responsible for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they provide. Users who violate these standards may lose their privileges on TucsonSentinel.com.

Sentinel editors can't read every comment. Trolls, spammers and other troublemakers can slide under the bridge. We rely on you to help maintain a healthy conversation - more than likely, you're reading these comments before the editors.

What if you see something inappropriate? Use the 'Flag' button to send it to a moderation queue. Help us out and tell us why you're reporting it; please don't report someone just because you disagree with them. Boy who cried wolf and all that. We'll take appropriate action on violations.

We will not edit comments to alter their meaning or censor comments because of political content.

We will not remove comments solely because they are heartless, cruel, coarse, foolish or just plain wrong. Your disapproval can maintain a decent signal to noise ratio. Ultimately, however, self-policing is the best method.

Bottom line, don't be a jerk.

Sign up for TucsonSentinel.com email newsletters!

find us on facebook
Sponsored by
Sponsored by
Sponsored by