Posted on 12/20/2004 11:47:27 PM PST by nanak
An activist judge strikes again! David C. Bury of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the will of the people and enjoined enforcement of Arizona's Proposition 200, which would require Arizonans to provide proof of citizenship in order to register to vote and require valid identification when applying for state benefits.
It's clear that Prop 200 represents the people's demand that their government enforce laws against illegal immigrants. It passed with 56 percent of the vote even though it was opposed by public officials of both parties, the Chamber of Commerce, big labor and the Catholic bishops.
Even 47 percent of Arizona Hispanics voted in favor of Prop 200. Immigrants who had stood in long lines to come here legally see no reason to allow their tax dollars to go to the 4,000 immigrants who illegally cross Arizona's border every night.
Bury was appointed by President George W. Bush. That prompts the question: Has a Bush judge already turned into a supremacist judge who ignores the will of the people in favor of his own, or Bush's, policy preferences?
Bush's plan to give illegal immigrants guest-worker status, which forgoes punishment for their violations of immigration law and therefore meets the definition of amnesty, was shot down by Congress earlier this year. Yet on Nov. 2 Bush went to Santiago, Chile, and insulted many who voted for him by announcing he would expend the "political capital" earned in his re-election to grant guest-worker status to millions of illegal immigrants.
Two dozen congressmen wrote a letter to the president opposing his plan, primarily for national security reasons. Bush brushed them off with elitist disdain. "I get letters all the time from people who are trying to steer me one way or the other," he said; "I'm going to move forward."
Bush made his commitment during a half-hour meeting with Mexican President Vicente Fox. Bush said, "I made it very clear my position that we need to make sure that where there's a willing worker and a willing employer, that that job ought to be filled legally in cases where Americans will not fill that job."
With Bush's mantra, repeated ad nauseam, it's no wonder that former New York Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik didn't think it important to reveal to the White House vetting process that he was a "willing employer" who employed a housekeeper/nanny who was an immigrant "willing worker" illegally living in the United States. Of course, he wasn't paying Social Security taxes for her. Kerik subsequently removed himself from consideration as the new head of the Homeland Security Department.
Maybe he expected the president's attitude to be: "No problem, Kerik. Since the nanny has a job, I'll just give her a guest-worker permit, and in three years she can get it renewed and then have permanent residency."
When Bush speaks of a "willing employer" and a "willing worker," he never talks about the wage the employer is willing to pay or the wage the worker is willing to accept. There are billions of non-Americans who are willing to work for Third World wages and, as the Bernard Kerik case proves. There are U.S. multimillionaires who would rather enjoy the cheap labor provided by illegal immigrants than pay the wages Americans expect.
The way Bush steamrollered the intelligence bill through Congress in December 2004, demanding that the House abandon its sensible provisions for border security, indicates that he might be willing to split the Republican Party in order to carry out his promise to Fox. Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., R-Wis., emerged as a hero from the legislative battle because he fought to include strong border security and a prohibition against granting drivers' licenses to illegal immigrants, finally saying that the failure to include this "will keep Americans unnecessarily at risk."
It was dishonest of the media and the pro-open-borders senators to try to pit Sensenbrenner against the Sept. 11 commission's recommendations. In fact, the commission's final report came out strongly in favor of clamping down on border security and drivers' licenses to illegal immigrants.
The commission report said: "It is elemental to border security to know who is coming into the country. ... At many entry points to vulnerable facilities, including gates for boarding aircraft, sources of identification are the last opportunity to ensure that people are who they say they are and to check whether they are terrorists."
Even though the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers' drivers' licenses enabled them to travel freely throughout America like U.S. citizens with easy access to vehicles and buildings, all the time concealing their terrorist designs, the senators and the White House irrationally maintained that drivers' licenses should be available to illegal immigrants. Since Rep. Sensenbrenner's courageous stand forced these issues onto the national news, we hope Congress will deal with the problem of illegal immigrants in January 2005.
Yet on Nov. 2 Bush went to Santiago, Chile, and insulted many who voted for him by announcing he would expend the "political capital" earned in his re-election to grant guest-worker status to millions of illegal immigrants
What was his reason for "enjoining" the statute ..? Did he declare it unConstititional or something ..??
There is a hearing tomorrow about Prop 200, and the judge put the injunction on it till the hearing, but what the hey gotta whip up those emotions.
gotta rile everyone up....
Yeah....these threads I normally read and ignore, but I saw one glaring mistake in the story and had to call it...
Is that how it works? I thought Kerry and the Unions lost?
I knew there was an injunction .. but I agree Townhall is trying to make a case out of nothing.
Well I know that you don't want to hear this BUT he is a federal judge and he is just acting in accordance with constitutional law. A state referendum cannot supersede federal statutes. That is why every state referendum on "medical pot" has failed. If you want to make a 10th amendment case then the law has to originate from the state legislature NOT by direct democracy NOT via state referenda..
Could you please explain your point? Why does referenda, which becomes either law or state constitutional reform, differ from legislature passed laws in the eyes of federal judges?
Folks the real issue here is the fact that law schools are the most leftwing indoctrination camps in the university system. If tere are few conservative professors in the ivory towers, there are very very very very few conservative law professors.
It is VERY orwelliam with regards to pushing law to make it impossible to convey conservative thought. Forbidden words, thought "crimes", and groupthink dominate the halls of law school. So as the various states build MORE law schools remember that reality as Bush has to pick judges.
(personally I would prefere he pick lawyers who have worked in the private sector, doing civil work, rather than in the DOJ all their lives.)
ping
The injunction was issued at the request of MALDEF, who claimed that the law intrudes on Federal benefits. However, the law specifically excludes Federal benefits.
I call it a law because the Governor has signed it. Judge Bury recognized that the law had severability built into it, so portions that aren't being questioned by MALDEF are not affected...specifically, the requirement to show proof of citizenship prior to registering to vote.
Even though he opposed the proposition, the AZ Attorney General has filed a brief with the Court supporting the law. The fact that the law specifically excludes Federal benefits should make the hearing little more than a joke...unless the judge uses this to hammer a nail into the coffin of MALDEF.
Since nobody can remember ever seeing this alleged nanny, and Kerik won't give her name, country of origin, dates of employment, age, or any other fact about her, I'd say this was a face-saving cover story for his other problems. Like hanging around with mob members, being a womanizer, etc.
This article is wrong. Proposition 200 has not been overturned and the hearing doesn't even take place until tomorrow. In the meantime the governor has signed it into law.
There are other aspects of the article that are flat out wrong, too.
Bush's fault...
I hate to say it, but Hillary is looking better all the time ...
He doesn't have a point. Initiatives in states where their constitutions provide for them are Constitutionally indistinguishable from laws passed by their legislatures. In fact, most initiatives in California are placed there by simple majority votes of the legislature - typically to avoid a politically risky issue.
Why don't you write explicitly how and why Hillary looks "better" and why you would trust her.
Also, you would do well to realize this "article" is filled with disinformation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.