From the archive: This story is more than 10 years old.

Comments on

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

SB 1070 author says he, Romney share 'identical' views

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.
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’...

— 30 —


Best in Internet Exploder