Arizona’s SB 1070 Goes Where California’s 1994 Proposition 187 Failed; it’s All about Security for Its Citizens, the other was for Denying Benefits

Arizona’s SB 1070 Goes Where California’s 1994 Proposition 187 Failed; it’s All about Security for Its Citizens, whereas the other was for Denying Benefits to Illegal Immigrants:

By Marc Chamot

It's Constitutional! Says Former Judge; Updated April 30th 2010:

Every nation has the right to protect themselves from ALL invaders, especially criminal illegal elements coming across from porous Mexican border into Arizona.

The Mexican drug wars have elevated the state of urgency for actions, whereas the FEDS have totally ignored. Arizona citizens have every right to protect themselves from these elements, even if the FEDS are unwilling to do so.

Regardless what the FEDS decide on this issue, Arizona must stand for state rights; they must fight hard against wanton federal expansions, and they must ignore ANY federal court orders that tell them that they cannot enforce their OWN laws, especially those pertaining to CRIMINAL illegal immigrants causing havoc within their cities and state.

A reaction to Arizona’s new illegal immigration laws was pretty obvious, and obviously it isn’t coming from the majority of Americans and Arizonans who support this stringent laws curbing illegal immigration. However, all the noise is coming from pro-illegal aliens groups from California, Democrats, and the U.S. congress all the way to President Obama.

What’s really funny about this insanity with our law and disorder politicians, they want to pick and choose which laws they want to enforce.

While Arizona is trying to bring in more law and order from rampant criminal illegal aliens, San Francisco, the criminal illegal aliens’ protectionists, and mainly the city of laws and disorders, their city attorney Dennis Herrera wants to FORCE Obama and the FEDS, not to prosecute city workers, for violating federal laws over their sanctuary policies.

Dennis Herrera twice went to Washington DC, pleading special protections for his city workers, from federal prosecutions over their illegal activities protecting criminal illegal alien gangbangers from turning them over to ICE for deportations.

San Francisco juvenile probation officers were caught harboring and transporting undocumented youths back across the border, after they were arrested for FELONIES. Northern California U.S. Attorney General Joseph Russoniello a Republican, and a former George Bush appointee, wants to prosecute some San Francisco officials, for violations of federal laws that were broken.

Russoniello had convened a grand jury last year to get the ball rolling, but unfortunately, with Obama becoming the new American president, Obama and along with his bands of Democratic Party immigration obstructionists, Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer, they want to replace Russoniello, the Chief Northern California U.S. attorney, they call him a trouble maker for San Francisco sanctuary policies, the criminal illegal aliens’ and scofflaws protectionists city of San Francisco WANT someone else who will look the other way.

So last month, President Obama with Barbara Boxers’ urging nominated Melinda Haag, a San Francisco liberal attorney and former federal prosecutor, to replace Joseph Russoniello. Now the same bands of San Francisco leftists, loonies want to propose banning city business and dealings with Arizona.

To the city of San Francisco, BUT it’s okay for them to break federal laws in protecting criminal aliens, but it’s NOT okay for Arizona to enforce them. But who’s boycotting San Francisco’s IDIOCIES?

We’ve got some groups of so called experts, who want to compare Arizona’s chances in Federal courts; just as California did with their failed 1994 anti-illegal aliens’ proposition 187.

California’s Proposition 187 (was also known as the Save Our State initiative) was a 1994 ballot initiative designed to prohibit illegal immigrants from using social services, health care, and public education in the U.S. State of California. It was initially passed by the voters but later found unconstitutional by a federal court, with appeals against the judgments being halted by Governor Gray Davis in 1999.

Proposition 187 heated up the ongoing issue of illegal immigration into the United States and the state's large undocumented Latino population. It was viewed by opponents as based largely on xenophobia toward immigrants of Hispanic origin but supporters insisted that their concerns were entirely economic.^[1][2]

Proposition 187 was introduced by Republican assemblyman Dick Mountjoy of Monrovia as the "Save Our State" initiative.^[3] In the general election of November 8, 1994, California voters approved the proposition by a 58.93% margin.^[4] It was signed into law by Governor Pete Wilson, a prominent supporter of the proposition, the following day. A number of legal challenges led to the law being eventually overturned in federal court.^[5]

Why it didn’t get appealed, I’ll never know, but Arizona has a shot to take their law even further, and even DEFY the federal government. And fortunately, California’s and Arizona’s anti-immigrant issues cannot be compared, they are both entirely different. Arizona’s SB 1070 new anti-illegal aliens’ law primarily aims to identify, prosecute and deport mostly CRIMINAL illegal immigrants. See More: Arizona Enacts Stringent Law on Immigration

UPDATED April 30th 2010:

It's constitutional says former judge:

Leave it to The Chronicle to put its social Democrat slant on Arizona's new law to enforce unlawful entry into our nation as a crime ("Prop. 187 may show Arizona law's fate," April 26).

Arizona's law will not be harder to defend than California's 1994 Proposition 187. Prop. 187 died in a federal trial court because the governor refused to appeal an adverse ruling, even to the first appellate level, let alone the U.S. Supreme Court.

Arizona's law is consistent with federal law rendering illegal entry into our land a crime. Superfluity does not make it unconstitutional." Judge Quentin L. Kopp (retired) San Francisco

Arizona’s law was legislated by their legislature FOR security reasons, whereas the California law was voted by the PEOPLE to deny illegal aliens BENEFITS. It’s a BIG difference between the two. Only ignorant Medias and their politicians will compare the two as one and the same.

Upon the circumstances, I do agree the law is tough. But did Arizona really have the choice? No they didn’t. Securing our border with Mexico has been an EPIDEMIC FAILURE coming from the Feds for years. If the Feds do decide to sanction Arizona, like cutting off Fed moneys to the state, Arizona in turn can cut off federal tax deductions to the federal government.

The bottom line, being in the United States illegally is a CRIME, punto.

The U.S. Supreme Court has never had the opportunity to really define the legality statuses of illegal immigrants. On what rights do Illegal immigrants really have? The word “Illegal” is exactly what it means, it’s ILLEGAL. The Federal courts and the Supreme Court need to be very careful when addressing this issue in the future.

If U.S. courts give illegal aliens special rights and privileges’ for breaking American laws, WE the PEOPLE will be watching, and then what’s to stop other criminal matters, like non-violent criminal matters, such as unpaid traffic citations and parking tickets, trespassing onto public properties, tax-cheating, failure to register automobiles, failure in acquiring drivers licenses, profession licenses and so forth.

If they PARDON crimes for one, they MUST pardon for everybody under the U.S. Constitution. You cannot excuse one type of crime for a group of PEOPLE over others, its unequal justice and its ILLEGAL and it may even bring about anarchism.