Arizona Sens. John McCain (R) and Jon Kyl (R) Wednesday made the following statement regarding the United States District Court of Arizona’s decision blocking enforcement of certain provisions of the Arizona immigration law:We are deeply disappointed in the court’s ruling today and disagree with the court’s opinion that the Arizona’s law will unduly "burden" the enforcement of federal immigration law.Instead of wasting tax payer resources filing a lawsuit against Arizona and complaining that the law would be burdensome, the Obama Administration should have focused its efforts on working with Congress to provide the necessary resources to support the state in its efforts to act where the Federal government has failed to take , it’s even more important to implement our Ten-Point Border Security plan to protect Arizonans and our country.
Despite injunction, Ariz. GOP believes court will uphold immigration law
- 07/29/10 09:08 AM ET
While we are disappointed in the federal court's decision to issue a temporary injunction, it is often the case that a judge will initially approve a temporary injunction until they have an opportunity to hear and read arguments and legal research from both sides. Our expectation is that Judge Bolton will rule in favor of S.B. 1070 as we believe that S.B. 1070 is constitutional.
Based on my prior experience with Proposition 200, I expect this case will go to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The federal government's argument that S.B. 1070 would have placed and undue burden on them is as absurd as it is a complete dismissal of the tremendous burden placed on Arizona by the federal government not doing its job. The mere fact that they would rather sue the Grand Canyon state than allow us to protect ourselves is patently ridiculous and completely out of touch with needs of Arizonans.
Randy Pullen is chairman of the Arizona Republican Party and treasurer of the Republican National Committee.
The federal government's argument that S.B. 1070 would have placed and undue burden on them is as absurd as it is a complete dismissal of the tremendous burden placed on Arizona by the federal government not doing its job. The mere fact that they would rather sue the Grand Canyon state than allow us to protect ourselves is patently ridiculous and completely out of touch with needs of Arizonans.
Randy Pullen is chairman of the Arizona Republican Party and treasurer of the Republican National Committee.
07/30/10 10:04 AM ET
Across the United States, discussions involving the state of Arizona’s recently enacted immigration enforcement law became very impassioned. Simultaneously, many Americans expressed concern surrounding the lawsuit filed by the Obama administration to prevent the law's implementation. Unfortunately, a very serious point was lost in the discourse.Working under the direction of President Obama, the Department of Justice (DOJ) argued in its suit that Arizona’s law must be struck down because it usurps federal authority to enforce current immigration law. Ironically, while the administration spends time and resources battling Arizona's law in court, dozens of "sanctuary cities" around the country candidly refuse to cooperate with federal officials on immigration enforcement. I am stunned by the hypocrisy exhibited by this administration’s decision to file a lawsuit against a state for enforcing laws to protect its residents from the harmful impact of border crime, while casting a blind eye to cities that provide safe haven to illegal and sometimes criminal aliens.During a recent hearing in the Committee on Homeland Security, I questioned James Dinkins, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) official tasked with conducting homeland security investigations, about this troubling double standard. Mr. Dinkins acknowledged that the lack of cooperation by sanctuary cities can be “challenging” for federal agencies and “does come at a cost,” especially when ICE experiences difficulties building a criminal case against an alien.
Arizona’s attorney general, who has been a vocal opponent of his state’s law, even admitted at the hearing there is an “inconsistency” in the federal government filing a lawsuit against his state for attempting to identify illegal aliens in their communities, given a recent public statement by the administration indicating it has no concern with addressing the dozens of sanctuary cities across the nation.
The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) recently released a report that found the cost of illegal immigration at the federal, state and local level is $113 billion annually. In my home state of Pennsylvania alone, the cost is an astonishing $1.3 billion. Surely these costs, borne by American taxpayers, would prompt swift action by the administration to crack down on cities deliberately providing sanctuary to illegal aliens. Unfortunately, that’s simply not the case.
If this cost alone cannot garner the attention of the administration, certainly the dangerous activities of criminal aliens living in these communities must. Again, not the case. In 2007, the country was shocked by news that three young adults were brutally gunned down in a Newark, N.J., schoolyard by an illegal alien who was free on a $150,000 bond after being indicted on aggravated assault charges and 31 counts of child abuse.
Sadly, this assailant had an opportunity to kill these young people because the courts that set his bail were either unaware of or indifferent to the fact that he was living in this country illegally. This situation was not an aberration — at the time of the murders, the Newark Police Department had a policy of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” when it came to inquiring about a defendant’s immigration status. Though some may cast aside this case as a rare situation, the reality is there are cities with policies that mirror Newark’s across the country.
If this administration was serious about addressing the nation’s growing illegal immigration problem, it would be working to eliminate the alluring safe haven offered by sanctuary cities. Instead, it has prioritized a misguided lawsuit against a state taking steps to improve security for its residents in light of the federal government’s own failure to secure our southern border and enforce existing immigration laws.
The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) recently released a report that found the cost of illegal immigration at the federal, state and local level is $113 billion annually. In my home state of Pennsylvania alone, the cost is an astonishing $1.3 billion. Surely these costs, borne by American taxpayers, would prompt swift action by the administration to crack down on cities deliberately providing sanctuary to illegal aliens. Unfortunately, that’s simply not the case.
If this cost alone cannot garner the attention of the administration, certainly the dangerous activities of criminal aliens living in these communities must. Again, not the case. In 2007, the country was shocked by news that three young adults were brutally gunned down in a Newark, N.J., schoolyard by an illegal alien who was free on a $150,000 bond after being indicted on aggravated assault charges and 31 counts of child abuse.
Sadly, this assailant had an opportunity to kill these young people because the courts that set his bail were either unaware of or indifferent to the fact that he was living in this country illegally. This situation was not an aberration — at the time of the murders, the Newark Police Department had a policy of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” when it came to inquiring about a defendant’s immigration status. Though some may cast aside this case as a rare situation, the reality is there are cities with policies that mirror Newark’s across the country.
If this administration was serious about addressing the nation’s growing illegal immigration problem, it would be working to eliminate the alluring safe haven offered by sanctuary cities. Instead, it has prioritized a misguided lawsuit against a state taking steps to improve security for its residents in light of the federal government’s own failure to secure our southern border and enforce existing immigration laws.
No comments:
Post a Comment