E Pluribus Unum
At midnight of July 29, 2010, the new Arizona Immigration Law went into effect, sending many of the bill’s opposition into the streets, in protest. Though many of the main, heavy handed policies scheduled to go into effect were blocked by an Arizona judge, the opposition is not counting it a victory. It has been estimated that over 100,000 illegals and even Arizona residents have picked up and left Arizona when the legislation was introduced. It is also estimated that another 460,000 are in the process of relocating since the bill’s passage. The immigration bill has already had its desired effect in its intent:

Intent

The legislature finds that there is a compelling interest in the cooperative enforcement of federal immigration laws throughout all of Arizona. The legislature declares that the intent of this act is to make attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local government agencies in Arizona. The provisions of this act are intended to work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States.

The Law

You have heard it said that Arizona is merely, enforcing a law already in effect. This statement is correct. In Title 8 Chapter 5, Aliens and Nationality, of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations states the limits and what is permissive for States to enforce. However, the U.S. Code only limits enforcement to apprehension and does not mention anything on deterrence. Arizona is expanding this law in lieu of a state crisis, pitted in increasing violent crime on the border and millions of dollars going to public services, used by illegals prevalently. Has the U.S. Congress had a chance to revise and/or repeal any of these codes since the introduction of the Arizona Immigration Law, to maybe, provide a stance of illegal immigration deterrence, so Arizona would not have to act alone? Yes.

In January 2010, Congress revisited the U.S. Code, according to policy; January was the same month the Arizona Immigration Law was being introduced in the Arizona Senate. Prior to this, active measures, such as immigration sweeps, were being conducted. Again, where was the Fed? Was the U.S. Code another Congress-approved piece of paper “finger drilled” without being read? I am starting to believe it is this Administration’s policy to not read anything that comes across its desk. If Congress and the President wanted to block the Arizona law, this could have been done if someone who actually cared about their job revised and/or repealed anything in Title 8. It is only the law of the land, right? If it is the law, then why is the Fed taking it to court? The lawsuit claims that Arizona has overstepped its bounds and the law could result in racial profiling. The Arizona Immigration Law says that, “A law enforcement officer, without a warrant, may arrest a person IF the officer has probable cause to believe the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the U.S.” Furthermore, Subsection I of the Arizona Immigration Law says that peace officers can be held liable for civil rights violations, if they acted on bad faith. However, that is being mitigated already by Arizona law enforcement agencies, requiring all of its peace officers to undergo training in how to uphold the law without losing the public trust. The video Arizona law enforcement are required to view is at this website: http://agency.azpost.gov/video/index.html. I encourage you all to, not only view this video, but read the U.S. Code of Regulations on Aliens and Nationality and the Immigration and Nationality Act, if you desire to affirm your belief in this new law.

Its Effects

Now that we know that Arizona is in full compliance with Federal law (more so than the Fed), how much are the illegal immigrants costing Arizona in public services meant for legal residents? Check out the charts below, to see how much Arizona would be saving, according to azcentral.com:

With the U.S. already hard on economic times, Arizona could use the savings in health care and education, depicted above.

The Decision

On July 28, 2010, Judge Bolton blocked many of the effective measures implementing the state law. These are the provisions blocked and the reasons why, provided by foxnews.com:

1. Requiring verification of immigration status: Requiring that an officer make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully present in the United States, and requiring verification of the immigration status of any person arrested prior to releasing that person.

Reasoning: Pre-empted by federal law because it creates an additional burden on the federal government by increasing the number of immigration-verification requests to the federal government.

2. Failure to carry immigration papers: Creating a crime for the failure to apply for or carry alien registration         papers.

Reasoning: Pre-empted as an impermissible attempt to create its own state immigration scheme by altering   the penalties established by Congress under the federal registration scheme.

3. Illegal for an illegal to solicit work: Creating a crime for an unauthorized alien to solicit, apply for or perform work.

Reasoning: Pre-empted because there is a comprehensive federal scheme regulating employment of illegal immigrants.

4. Warrantless arrest for potentially removable alien:  Authorizing the warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe the person has committed a public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.

Reasoning: Pre-empted because determining whether a specific offense makes an alien removable is a tough decision and there is “a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens,” thus impermissibly burdening legal aliens (and only the federal government can impose such burdens)

Identification in Everyday Life

To personalize this new law for every one of us, let us look at our daily life: How many times do we have to show identification to get what we want? When we go to the movie theater, Sam’s Club, purchase alcohol or a fire arm, and even when we get pulled over by police. It is apart of being a citizen here in the United States. If you are in full compliance with the law, then there should be no problem with cooperating with law enforcement. My wife is an immigrant and she carries her required documentation everywhere she goes, because that is what she is supposed to do! Is the Fed saying that I could have transported my wife to Mexico and entered the U.S. illegally, without repercussions? Man that would have saved me over $1500 and six inches of paper work, if I knew the Fed was that permissive on immigration.

The Juice is Worth the Squeeze

I would have never have chose that route anyway. I am proud to be an American. I want my wife to feel the same way about this country as I do; that the pain is worth the reward; to realize that nothing is handed to you and you work for who and what you care about; and to be called “American,” knowing that centuries of struggles and prosperity have made that title an honor to bear.

———————————————————————————————-

By Christopher Corbett
Christopher is a devoted husband and father of a three year old son with a daughter on the way. He is 27 years old and currently serving in the United States Army as a Chaplain Assistant, and have been serving since August 2001.
THANK YOU, Christopher, for your dedication to our country!

References:
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.f6da51a2342135be7e9d7a10e0dc91a0/?vgnextoid=fa7e539dc4bed010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=fa7e539dc4bed010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD&CH=act
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/05/09/20100509immigration-law-timeline.html
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_10/8cfrv1_10.html
http://agency.azpost.gov/video/index.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/28/quick-analysis-arizona-immigration-law-ruling/

(continued from: “GRNC vs NRA: The History”)

Now, let’s take a look at each organizations rating system and compare a couple of current candidates. Understand that each organization takes a different approach to rating candidates. Both organizations issue candidates surveys as well as evaluating voting records and previous positions on gun issues.  The NRA opts for the flexibility of choosing which votes to include in their evaluations, key indicators like “critical’ and “key votes” should be noted. However, GRNC takes a purists approach to voting records by tabulating every vote a candidate has cast dealing with Second Amendment issues.

The NRA scores an incumbent with an A+ who “not only has an excellent voting record on [critical] NRA issues, but who has also made a vigorous effort to promote the Second Amendment.”  An “A” rating is issued to incumbents “who have supported NRA positions on [key votes].”

GRNC is much less subjective, by rating a candidate’s position on gun issues “by comparing their views with those of a control group of gun owners. A 4-star candidate agrees with pro-gun voters on at least 90% of gun issues, a 3-star agrees on at least 80%, a 2-star on at least 70%, a 1-star on at least 60%. A 0 star candidate agrees on less than 60% of gun issues.

To be honest, many candidates legitimately share positive ratings from both organizations, as evident by Democratic Sen. Doug Berger and Republican Phil Berger.  However, there are some stark differences and here is where it becomes evident that the NRA panders to incumbents.  For example, the casual pro-gun voter in Mecklenburg County would believe that Sen. Clodfelter’s “A+” rating from the NRA indicates he is a strong pro-gun candidate.  Clodfelter’s GRNC shows that he votes with gun owners only about 60% of the time.  For me and GRNC 60% is a failing grade.  Kind of makes you wonder, doesn’t it?

It will be interesting to see how the NRA rates Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid this fall and who they endorse.  Reid’s challenger is Tea Party-preferred candidate, Sharron Angle who is decisively conservative and pro gun.  On the other hand, Reid’s long record of voting against the Second Amendment was recently chronicled by Gun Owners of America.  GOA lists 44 reasons why Nevada gun owners should vote against Reid and why freedom loving Americans should support Angle. The question remains, will the NRA sell out to incumbency or will America’s largest pro-gun organization support a pro-gun candidate?

Here in North Carolina voters will know exactly where a candidate stands on gun issues.  GRNC’s “Remember in November” is a comprehensive evaluation that scores each candidate by tabulating their survey results, voting record, and other positions the candidate may have.  This guide will be distributed to approximately 120,000 NC gun owners this fall.

See Also: “GRNC vs. NRA: There is a big difference“

————————————————————————————————

David Regnery
Board Member, Grassroots North Carolina

This is the best ten minutes you are going to spend today … Wednesday, August fourth, a group of black tea party believing patriots made a trip to Washington D.C. for a National Black Conservative Press Conference (snippet below) hosted by the Tea Party Express to refute claims of racism made by the NAACP. Among these patriots were Lloyd Marcus (website, Facebook, Twitter) and North Carolina’s own Timothy Johnson (website, Facebook, Twitter).

Kevin Jackson (website, Facebook, Twitter) is quoted as saying:

“Democrats have re-enslaved America,” said Kevin Jackson, president of the Black Conservative Coalition. He also stated that tea party activists are working towards building a more positive future for Americans that would reduce the size of the federal government and develop a contemporary version of the Emancipation Proclamation; the infamous document that President Abraham Lincoln signed that effectively put an end to slavery. “This time, even the white folks get freed,” said Jackson.“

Ladies and Gentlemen, it CANNOT stop here. We need more people willing to speak up, and get involved. If you are not currently involved in a project making a conservative difference for our children’s futures, and aren’t sure where to start- leave a comment. We can help.

—————————————————————————————————-

* Visit National Association for the Advancement of Conservative People of ALL Colors
* Visit The Frederick Douglass Foundation

Several years ago I began to question some of the candidate ratings the NRA was awarding politicians whom I was certain did not share my reverence of the Second Amendment. I thought to myself “how in the hell can that be”. Something was wrong, either the candidate was lying to the NRA or the NRA was lying to me. What I discovered not only surprised but saddened me, it lead me to joining Grass Roots North Carolina (GRNC) where today I serve as their Director of Volunteer Services and on the Board of Directors.

It was 1994; Republican Ham Horton was challenging incumbent Democrat Ted Kaplan for his senate seat. Mr. Kaplan had a rather extensive record of supporting anti-gun legislation. He favored of the ridiculous assault weapon ban, supported hand gun registration, and a one-gun a-month purchase law. In contrast, Horton recognized that banning semi-automatic sporting rifles because of cosmetic features like thumb-hole stocks was absolutely absurd. Horton held the Second Amendment in high esteem which was diametrically opposite to Kaplan’s indifference to the Founding Father’s intention that, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

Horton entered the race with several political “positives”; he had previously been elected to public office, was well respected within the community and as such enjoyed established name recognition. You can only imagine our shock as the race tightened up and the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action issued their candidate ratings. Kaplan’s rating had been upgraded from a “C” to an “A”. To add insult to injury, the NRA actively campaigned on behalf of Kaplan by mailing orange alert postcards to every NRA member in the district. I was dumbfounded; the NRA was endorsing Ted Kaplan. In the end, things worked out. Ham Horton and fellow state senate candidate Mark McDaniel were both elected against the wishes of the NRA. Both senators went on to support North Carolinians’ right to carry concealed weapon (CCW), a law that was written by GRNC, and both fought for its passage.

Two years later, in 1996 the NRA and GRNC would again lock horns regarding candidate ratings. During the 1995 legislative session Democrat Senator Fountain Odom was attempting to seriously gut the CCW bill in his subcommittee. He proposed onerous provisions that would require individuals to repeat mandatory training when permits were renewed. He fixed it so that concealed carry would be prohibited in financial institutions and state parks. He attempted to fix it so that only police firearm instructors could teach the mandatory course; in fact he actually proposed prohibiting NRA Instructors, such as myself, from teaching the course. He later reversed direction on the Senate floor by removing his objection thus allowing NRA Instructors to teach the course. It was apparently this single act of compromise that endeared Odom to the NRA.

During the 1996 election cycle the NRA’s lead lobbyist Tanya Metaksa gave Odom an A rating, issued one of their, now suspect, orange “ALERT” postcards endorsing him with a glowing recommendation with the following comments to NRA members, “Senator Odom has demonstrated his commitment to our right to self-defense…Here’s how you can help re-elect Fountain Odom – a dedicated supporter of your Second Amendment rights. Help the campaign…make a contribution…spread the word to family, friends, and fellow gun owners…” Gun owners who knew of Odom’s flagrant opposition to the Second Amendment and his history of supporting ever increasing gun restrictions were shocked.

GRNC countered with their own “Election Alert” postcard mailing besting the NRA by reaching out to nearly twice as many gun owners in Odom’s district. The mailing detailed Odom’s Second Amendment transgressions in order to set the record straight. The mailing was complimented with radio spots targeting gun owners and the tactics successfully neutralized the NRA’s endorsement. Fountain Odom was defeated by Robert Pittenger who acknowledged that GRNC had made the difference in a close and hotly contested race.

(to be continued)

————————————————————

David Regnery
Board Member, Grassroots North Carolina

Previous Post: “GRNC vs. NRA: There is a big difference“

GRNC Alert 07-13-10:
We Are Still A Few Votes Short Of Killing The Kagan Nomination

The following comes from our friends at Gun Owners of America.  Please take action on this vital situation and keep Kagan out of the Supreme Court.

The hearings on Elena Kagan to be a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court are over.

Senate Democrats slammed them through quickly, in the same way they did ObamaCare.  And, like ObamaCare, they made sure that Senate Republicans would not have the material they needed to review Kagan’s record — withholding, for example, large amounts of Clinton administration legal advice on a claim of executive privilege.

(If you missed GOA’s testimony at the Kagan hearings, you can view it here: http://gunowners.org/kagantestimony .)

While much has been concealed, what we do know about Kagan is not good, as her public service has clearly shown antagonism to the Constitution and the Separation of Powers.

For example, when it became clear that the Supreme Court might strike down parts of the Brady Act (which it eventually did in 1997), Kagan suggested that President Clinton “by executive order, [might] prohibit a FFL from selling a handgun” without a certification from local police.

In other words, Kagan believed that the President could circumvent the role of Congress and to act unilaterally, without any legal authority, to impose restrictions upon the private ownership of handguns.

Not only that, Kagan drafted a memo for President Clinton suggesting a whole list of guns that could be banned by executive fiat.  The Los Angeles Times reported on May 27, 2010, that: “At the time of the [1997] import ban, Jose Cerda, who worked in the domestic policy shop run by Kagan and her boss, Bruce Reed, said, ‘We are taking the law and bending it as far as it can to capture a whole new class of guns.’”

Combine all of this with the fact that in 1987 Elena Kagan told her boss, Justice Thurgood Marshall, that she was “not sympathetic” to the plight of an African-American man who wanted to own a gun for self-protection because he carried large sums of cash when depositing money for the laundromat where he worked in Washington, D.C.

Elena Kagan will follow philosophically in the footsteps of Sonia Sotomayor.  During her confirmation hearings, Americans were promised that Sotomayor believed the Heller case in 2008 established “that the Second Amendment right is an individual right.”  But in the recent McDonald case, Sotomayor joined the minority in wanting to both overturn Heller and deny that the Second Amendment protects a “fundamental” right.

So, Justice Sonia Sotomayor lied her way onto the bench.  And “cagey Kagan” is doing exactly the same thing.  Please make sure you take action!

IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED

The Senate Judiciary Committee will probably be voting on the Elena Kagan nomination next week — which means the proverbial ball is now rolling.  So contact your Senators and urge them to oppose Kagan for the U.S. Supreme Court.  And please urge your family and friends to do the same.

Contacts for North Carolina:

• Sen. Richard Burr: Phone: 202 224-3154; Fax: 202 228-2981; http://burr.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm
• Sen. Kay Hagan: Phone 202-224-6342; Fax: 202-228-2563  http://hagan.senate.gov/contact/