Immigration touches on every facet of America.   It is embedded into economics, education, healthcare, and even in the Constitution of the United States. More significantly, “Immigration policy can affect trade, investment, tourism, and diplomatic relations for the entire Nation, as well as the perceptions and expectations of aliens in this country who seek the full protection of its laws.” See Arizona et al. v. United States, No. 11-182, Sup. Ct. (decided June 25, 2012). For the many benefits that legal immigration brings to this country, it also brings a myriad of confusion spread by politicians from both parties who force states to create their own laws that clash with powers clearly given only to the Federal Government.  As a result, this confusion has States trying to implement laws over issues that are fundamentally out of their reach.

The Constitution specifically delineates what powers the Federal Government possesses over federal issues and which ones states possess; and while we may disagree on this distribution of power, States cannot superseded this law.  They, therefore cannot write or enforce laws that are not within their authority according to  Article I Section 8: Clause 4, which states that the Federal Government governs those laws on Naturalization.  More importantly, the Supreme Court agrees.

In its recent ruling, The Supreme Court held that the Arizona lawmakers cannot overstep their boundaries especially if the laws are posed to create chaotic conflict with Federal laws.  Moreover, the Supreme Court ruling stated that even if federal laws are not written to exactly address an issue according to Article I, the States may not impose their version of enforcement or control over the issue of immigration because Federal law preempts it.

One hundred years after the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. enjoyed prosperity and worried little about the borders. In fact, one could say that it enjoyed an open border policy which helped it to grow and prosper. Those who were a threat to the nation were deported, without hesitation. Those who helped the U.S. flourish were allowed to remain. Throughout the years, immigration law has been amended, simplified, re-codified, so much that its application is contradictory at many times. Not even a sense of discretion by officials or judges can make sense of it. States, especially in our southern border, have had trouble controlling the inflow of some unwanted aliens such gangs and cartels who may indeed threaten U.S. populations.  This fear has culminated and given a hurried passing to more complicated laws.  States are reacting by taking matters into their own hands and enacting laws that are strictly reserved for the Federal Government.

In Section 3 of SB 1070, Arizona called for aliens to register into a database to keep track of immigrants present in the state. Failure to do so, would have charged immigrants with a misdemeanor. The Supreme Court ruled that alien registration  was not only unnecessary, it was already done so by the Federal Government.  SB1070, therefore, was overstepping its boundary.

The Court further stated that States cannot criminalize an alien who is soliciting work in the U.S.  Under Federal law, in the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 and a court case of Hoffman Plastics, employers must already verify someone’s work status. The Arizona requirement would not only double the work but would be “unnecessary and unworkable” according to public policy. To apply this law would be a hindrance to the “accomplishment and execution of the full purpose and objectives of Congress.” Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, (1941).

Further, the Court stated that contrary to popular belief, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the U.S.  In fact, the Federal government already has a procedure in place to arrest and have them appear in court and Section 6 of SB1070 would only interfere with this federal power. Additionally, state agents do not have the proper training that would help them discern what makes someone a “probable cause” nor would they know what makes someone “removable” from the United States without having to inquire about their legal status.  Moreover, without the proper training an error in requesting proof of this, would create an  offensive situation to some Americans which could be illegal as well.   The Federal Government, already has authority over those “policies pertaining to the entry of aliens and their right to remain here are…..entrusted to Congress.” Truaz v. Reich, 239 U.S. 33, (1915).  States can enjoin to help federal agents when there is a “cooperation” agreement with the Federal Agencies or there exists a joint task force. However, other than this, states cannot act unilaterally to apply Immigration laws.

What remained then of the skeletal version of the SB1070 was the 2(B) section that allows state officers to make a “reasonable” assessment to determine someone’s status, which includes anyone who is stopped, detained, or arrested. State police agents then have the power to determine if there is a “reasonable suspicion” to determine if that person is unlawfully present in the U.S.   However, logic would follow that if you are not properly trained, how would you know to assess what is a “reasonable” characteristic.  And if state police agents are to be trained, are they not once again overstepping the federal police powers already entrusted to agents of the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Patrol, and United States Customs and Inspections Services?   The Supreme Court did not state that this part was constitutional, but rather stated that this issue is not yet “ripe.”  “It is not clear at this stage,” was the wording they used.   In other words, the law has not been enforced to cause an injury where a court can remedy it.

It was a subtle warning by the Court to States including Arizona who now have options.  The manner of enforcement, then, will determine if SB1070 is to return again to be addressed before The Court.  States must be careful to ensure that state officers not infringe on the rights of U.S. citizens. Therefore, the  law must have a compelling state interest to achieve its purpose and must pass the following tests:

1.     it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never clearly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the idea is that it touches on something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. In other words, is it necessary to protect national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, while not violating explicit constitutional protections.

2.     it must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest of the law. If the state action is overbroad or does not pinpoint the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.

3.      it must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest; meaning that there are not other means that are less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is equally the least restrictive.

States who are considering implementing the 2(B) version of SB1070 must carefully consider whether they can write and enforce laws that are not targeting a certain class of individuals who are protected in this country. The court did not state that this portion was Constitutional as it was written, only that it could not determine whether its application violated any citizen’s rights since it was not currently enforced. If Arizona, then,  decides to implement this portion of the law, it should be careful. If the law cannot meet the strict scrutiny test it should consider the Court’s ruling as a warning.  If you pick on a certain class of people, the portion of the law cannot be upheld as Constitutional regardless of how loud you scream. States must carefully walk through the tests already in place via the Constitution. The law must protect before it can gain momentum of acceptance.  More importantly,  if  the law cannot seek to remedy injustices,  States should reconsider implementing something that could divide our country rather unite it.

For more than two decades, anti-immigrant politicians and activists have stridently sought to redefine birthright citizenship. Harry Reid even introduced a bill in 1993 to redefine birthright citizenship, to exclude the children born of unauthorized immigrants. Hypocritically, Reid now criticizes Republicans who introduce anti-immigrant laws!

Opponents of birthright citizenship claim the framers of our constitution and authors of the 14th amendment meant something entirely different than what our courts have consistently ruled for over 100 years.

The plain language of the 14th amendment is crystal clear, which explains why no court has sided with birthright citizenship opponents. Section 1 of the 14th amendment states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

Opponents deliberately confuse “allegiance” with “jurisdiction”, claiming that children born of unauthorized immigrants owe allegiance to their parents’ home nation, not to the U.S., and therefore are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Black’s law dictionary defines jurisdiction as:

The power and authority constitutionally conferred upon (or constitutionally recognized as existing in) a court or judge to pronounce the sentence of the law, or to award the remedies provided by law, upon a state of facts, proved or admitted, referred to the tribunal for decision, and authorized by law to be the subject of investigation or action by that tribunal, and in favor of or against persons (or a res) who present themselves, or who are brought, before the court in some manner sanctioned by law as proper and sufficient.

In layman’s terms, if a court or government can hold you accountable under laws, then you are subject to its jurisdiction. Applying common sense, virtually everyone present in the U.S., regardless of any allegiance to any foreign government, is subject to U.S. jurisdiction. If an unauthorized immigrant throws a gum wrapper on the sidewalk in violation of anti-littering laws, they can be given a ticket or arrested. That’s jurisdiction! If unauthorized immigrants or their children were not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” then they would be immune to U.S. courts, could not be sued, fined, deported, etc.

The only present exception to U.S. jurisdiction are foreign leaders, diplomats and their families including U.S. born children, who have diplomatic immunity and cannot be arrested or sued in U.S. courts, and therefore are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction. If a diplomat throws a gum wrapper on the sidewalk in front of a cop and the cop tries to ticket for littering, the diplomat can claim immunity under international law and U.S. courts cannot fine him for littering.

Another frequent argument against birthright citizenship is that the 14th amendment was merely intended to ensure that newly freed slaves would be considered citizens and not to grant citizenship to children born of unauthorized immigrants.

Its true the purpose of the 14th amendment was to address citizenship of slaves. Under English Common Law at the time the U.S. became a nation, children born of slaves were not considered subjects or citizens, and the 14th amendment was needed to reverse the infamous Dredd Scott decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that blacks could never become citizens.

The doctrine of 1776, that all (white) men “are created free and equal,” is universally accepted and made the basis of all our institutions, State and National, and the relations of citizenship–the rights of the individual–in short, the status of the dominant race, is thus defined and fixed for ever.

But there have been doubts and uncertainties in regard to the negro. Indeed, many (perhaps most ) American communities have latterly sought to include him in the ranks of citizenship, and force upon him the status of the superior race.

This confusion is now at an end, and the Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott decision, has defined the relations, and fixed the status of the subordinate raceforever–for that decision is in accord with the natural relations of the races, and therefore can never perish. It is based on historical and existing facts, which are indisputable, and it is a necessary, indeed unavoidable inference, from these facts.

There is little doubt the purpose of the 14th amendment was to overturn Dredd Scott v. Stanford and ensure that Southern states respected newly freed slaves as citizens. However, transcripts of the Congressional debate showed that the status of children born of immigrants was vigorously debated. Some members of Congress wanted to exclude children born of Chinese immigrants, but when the vote was taken the 14th amendment passed.

Transcripts of debates in state legislatures that ratified the 14th amendment would no doubt show that citizenship of children born of immigrants was also considered. There is no grand historic misunderstanding. Congress did not intend to exclude the children born of immigrants from birthright citizenship. and a plain reading of the 14th amendment is crystal clear.

A good explanation of the 14th amendment can be found in this briefing by the Cato Institute. It is especially noteworthy that slaves imported after the ban went into effect in 1808 were among America’s first unauthorized immigrants, as well as many impoverished Irish immigrants who bypassed legal ports of entry to evade a head tax which they could not afford. In light of the ban on the slave trade which continued anyway, it is logically inconsistent to argue Congress meant to exclude anyone who immigrated illegally.

Prior to the 14th amendment, English Common law provided for birthright citizenship except for slaves. Upon independence, states passed reception statutes to implement and continue English common law except where it conflicted with state constitutions.

So just what did English Common law say about birthright citizenship when the constitution was adopted? The most authoritative text “An Analysis of the Laws of England” by William Blackstone, first published in 1765, and reprinted in 1770, 1773, 1774, 1775, 1778 and 1783. An updated version of Blackstone’s authoritative text was published by Henry John Stephen in 1841, and reprinted until after the Second World War.

Blackstone defined “natural born subjects” as those born within the dominions of England, and he argued that even if a natural born subject later swears allegiance to another nation, they are still natural born subjects of England. When America became a nation, we called ourselves citizens rather than subjects, but the concept of birthright citizenship remained. From William Blackstone (1765), Commentaries 1:354, 357–58, 361–62

The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject. The thing itself, or substantial part of it, is founded in reason and the nature of government; the name and the form are derived to us from our Gothic ancestors.

Allegiance, both express and implied, is however distinguished by the law into two sorts or species, the one natural, the other local; the former being also perpetual, the latter temporary. Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the king’s dominions immediately upon their birth. For, immediately upon their birth, they are under the king’s protection; at a time too, when (during their infancy) they are incapable of protecting themselves. Natural allegiance is therefore a debt of gratitude; which cannot be forfeited, cancelled, or altered, by any change of time, place, or circumstance, nor by any thing but the united concurrence of the legislature. An Englishman who removes to France, or to China, owes the same allegiance to the king of England there as at home, and twenty years hence as well as now. For it is a principle of universal law, that the natural-born subject of one prince cannot by any act of his own, no, not by swearing allegiance to another, put off or discharge his natural allegiance to the former: for this natural allegiance was intrinsic, and primitive, and antecedent to the other; and cannot be devested without the concurrent act of that prince to whom it was first due…

The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. 

Since Obama’s election, another dimension to the birthright citizenship debate emerged, claiming that one is not a “natural born citizen” unless both parents were citizens.  Article Two of our constitution requires that our president be a “natural born citizen” but does not define that term:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States

A 2011 report prepared by the Congressional Research Office concludes:

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.

This conclusion is entirely consistent with Blackstone’s commentary on English common law:

The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.

Blackstone also notes that children born abroad of diplomats are still considered natural born subjects:

Yet the children of the king’s embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.

As per Blackstone’s commentary, Americans such as John McCain, who was born of American citizen parents on a U.S. military base in Panama, who would have been considered a natural born subject of England under English common law. Ditto for Marco Rubio, whose parents were permanent residents of the U.S. when he was born.

The  Congressional Research Service also notes:

The term “natural born” citizen is not defined in the Constitution, and there is no discussion of the  term evident in the notes of the Federal Convention of 1787. The use of the phrase in the Constitution may have derived from a suggestion in a letter from John Jay to George Washington during the Convention expressing concern about having the office of Commander-in-Chief “devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen,” as there were fears at that time about wealthy European aristocracy or royalty coming to America, gaining citizenship, and then buying and scheming their way to the presidency without long-standing loyalty to the nation. At the time of  independence, and at the time of the framing of the Constitution, the term “natural born” with respect to citizenship was in use for many years in the American colonies, and then in the states, from British common law and legal usage. Under the common law principle of jus soli (law of the soil), persons born on English soil, even of two alien parents, were “natural born” subjects and, as noted by the Supreme Court, this “same rule” was applicable in the American colonies and “in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution …” with respect to citizens. In textual constitutional analysis, it is understood that terms used but not defined in the document must, as explained by the Supreme Court, “be read in light of British common law” since the Constitution is “framed in the language of the English common law.”

So why on Earth are some groups trying to rewrite hundreds of years of history and legal precedent? Clearly the birther movement is behind the effort to redefine ‘natural born citizen’ to de-legitimize President Obama, who clearly is a natural born citizen. There’s also a subliminal message that Obama ‘is not one of us.’

Note that I am no fan of Obama, and believe he’s our worst president in modern history. However, I do believe Obama is a natural born citizen per the legal precedent in place at the time our constitution was adopted. We should get rid of Obama, but at the ballot box, not in the courts. Its noteworthy also that the birther movement is batting ZERO in over  100 court cases.

Clearly there are also those who do not like Marco Rubio because he is Hispanic and the son of immigrants. By raising the issue of ‘natural born citizens’ some hope to derail any chance that Marco Rubio might become a VP running mate or a future presidential candidate.

With regards to immigration, there is clearly an effort afoot to generate hostility to groups that are perceived either as immigrants or recent offspring of immigrants. It’s also become acceptable in many quarters to hate unauthorized immigrants, blaming them for a range of social problems. By making an issue of birthright citizenship, now it becomes OK to also hate citizens who are perceived as benefiting from birthright citizenship.

Original posting

Former Arizona State Senate President Russell Pearce was thrown out of office in a rare successful recall election last year. He is running in a new Senate district against a decent, intelligent, successful rival for the August GOP nomination for the District 25. Popular U.S. Senator John Kyle has nailed the final nail in Pearce’s political coffin by endorsing candidate Bob Worsley who, Kyle says, is a “solid conservative.”

Just in case, however, we need to discuss Pearce’s profound racism that he exhibits towards Mexicans, Mexican Americans and even legal day-visitors from Mexico spending money in Arizona and, worst of all, newborn babies. Babies born in the United States, natural born U.S. citizens with Mexican parentage are absolutely hated by Pearce.

The American Civil liberties Union (ACLU) has released e-mails written by then Senator Pearce that reflect profound hatred of Mexicans. The ACLU demanded all e-mails of Pearce’s while he was a state senator under Arizona’s “Freedom of Information” law. Let us see how Pearce really thinks.

After a protest march by 20,000 Hispanics in Phoenix, Pearce wrote: “[m]ost of the protestors are not legal citizens, legal residents, or even legal visitors in our country. They are illegal. They have no right to request or demand anything.” (Email from Sen. Pearce dated Apr. 6, 2006).

Question: Other than brown skins how would Pearce know that “most” of the protesters were in the U.S. illegally? He could not possibly know.

Pearce: “I’m a racist because . . . I don’t want to be taxed to pay for a prison population comprised of mainly Hispanics, Latinos, Mexicans or whatever else you wish to call them . . . I object to having to pay higher sales tax and property tax to build more schools for the illegitimate children of illegal aliens,.[I] want to deny citizenship to all anchor babies born in this country pre 2006 and here after . . . I object to corporation and municipalities spending billions to translate everything in Spanish.”

Question: What part of the Constitution’s 14^th Amendment that declares that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States” are citizens, period, does Pearce not understand? How does he separate “illegitimate children of illegal aliens” from the illegitimate 30% or so of White babies or 70% of Black babies born? They are all Americans if born here. Just a note: Most immigration-hold prison inmates in Arizona or anywhere in the country exceed California’s 10%. So, how does semi-literate Pearce says prison populations are “mainly Hispanics?”

Pearce e-mail dated January 29, 2007, which reads in part:

The United States faces the greatest internal threat to its existence since the Civil War. It faces disintegration of its culture; of its language; of its cohesiveness as a nation of free people. It faces massive infusion of unrelenting poverty; of crime; of diseases; of civil violence; of corruption at all levels; and worst of all, the United States faces balkanization that will destroy the fabric of its ability to function as a peaceful nation.

WOW! We are doomed.  The percentage of illegal residents in the country is currently contracting and is below 4% of the total 310 million people in America today. WOW! We are doomed. Thanks for the warning Mr. Pearce (can’t call him senator any longer because he was thrown out of office).

Same e-mail: “Last week, Denver’s illegal aliens sang our national anthem in Spanish and bastardized the words of OUR country’s most sacred song. Talk about audacious, arrogant and condescending!”

WOW!

Pearce, same e-mail: “Tell me if you think they are becoming Americans. Ladies and gentlemen; this is an invasion by a foreign country.”

WOW! He should tell that to the almost 20% of the United States Marine combat arms that are either Mexican or Mexican American.

Pearce in the same e-mail: “(Then) Mexico’s Vicente Fox is no longer satisfied with the status quo. Battles commence as Mexican nationalists struggle to infuse their men into American government and strengthen control over their strongholds. One look at Los Angles (sic) with its Mexican-American mayor shows you Vicente Fox’s general Varigossa (sic) commanding an American city.”

L.A. Mayor Villaraigosa would be surprised to learn he commands anything and one has to say he probably never heard of Vicente Fox until he was elected President of Mexico. Villaraigosa and Fox don’t share any political philosophy.

Pearce: “They’ve started out as lawbreakers, they’re criminals. They have violated our law; they’ve trespassed in our nation. And they have attitudes.”

Howling-funny of the disgraced former state senator to declare that “They” have violated our laws, while he was fired from his job as Arizona Motor Vehicle director because he tolerated departmental law breaking, and as senator accepted $40,000 worth of illegal “gifts” from an admitted criminal who ran a criminal enterprise. That’s “attitude.”

Editors note: As with all postings on this blog which appear with a byline, the posting represents the author’s opinion and not the official position of Cafe Con Leche Republicans.

###

Raoul Lowery Contreras (1941) was born in Mexico, raised in the USA. Former U.S. Marine, athlete, Dean’s List at San Diego State. Professional political consultant and California Republican Party official(1963-65)…Television news commentator, radio talk show host…published Op-Ed writer (1988 to present)…author of 12 books (as of 1-05-12). His books are available on Amazon.com.

Part Two (Part One)

Stupid statements by former Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce as well as monstrous lies he tells are Pearce trademarks. Here, for example, is another Pearce pearl:

Pearce: “10 a day [coming across the U.S.-Mexico border] according to the Atlanta Science Foundation…are sexual predators.”

Deborah Schurman-Kauflin (DSK), has a Limited Liability Corporation in Atlanta she calls the Violent Crimes Institute. It is a one-person-for-profit company; she, charges $500-a-half hour if you want to speak with her on any subject.

Her 2006 paper “The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration,” is where Pearce drew his statement about “sexual predators.” She claimed that “2 percent of illegals apprehended” were sex offenders and serial killers. She provides no source for that figure that others can see. She claims to have examined Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) reports and public records for an 88 month period but in reality she references mostly weekly newspapers and some ICE press releases, not official reports, prison or court records.

In her own words, Deborah Schurman-Kauflin says she: “(Conducted) a 12 month in-depth study of illegal immigrants who committed sex crimes and murders for the time period January 1999 through April 2006…There were 1500 cases…They included: serial rapes, serial murders, sexual homicides, and child molestation committed by illegal immigrants.”

However, nowhere in her bibliography or her footnotes is there any mention of any specific official reports by any law enforcement agency, any court or any prison system.

Here is how she arrives at her numbers: “Based on population numbers of 12,000,000 illegal immigrants and the fact that young males make up more of this population than the general U.S. population, sex offenders in the illegal immigrant group make up a higher percentage.”

Of what, one might ask? More than 6,000,000 of those illegally here are males, of which about half would be young men. No one, however, knows what the numbers or percentages truly are. California reports that over half of illegally present male convicts are incarcerated for crimes of property and, less than 10% of all California inmates have immigration holds.

She says, “When examining ICE reports and public records, it is consistent to find sex offenders comprising 2% of illegals apprehended. Based on this 2% figure, which is conservative, there are approximately 240,000 illegal immigrant sex offenders in the United States.”

With this, she misrepresents her work. She didn’t examine actual reports. She ran across a government (GAO) report about inmates, but did not state, 2% of all local, state and federal inmates illegally in the U.S.A were sex criminals. Of course, the reason is that the feds don’t tabulate such crimes because they aren’t federal crimes, so her raw sources can’t be studied because they don’t exist.

She is in error. If there are 6-million illegally present males and 2% of them are sex offenders, there are, according to her math, 120,000 illegally immigrated males, not 240,000. She used the 12 million figure despite as many as 6-million being females and children.

DSK: “This translates to 93 sex offenders and 12 serial sexual offenders coming across U.S. borders illegally per day.” But, how can that be? During the peak of illegal immigration, 8,000 males were estimated to cross the border daily – based on apprehensions – that would amount to 160 alleged sexual offenders, not “93 sex offenders and 12 serial offenders” crossing every day. Her numbers make no sense.

Gustavo Arrellano AKA Ask A Mexican says it better: “For the Mexican, a more telling number in determining sexual deviancy amongst an ethnic group is the percentage of criminals arrested for such crimes: In 2003, gabachos (white boys) incarcerated for sex crimes represented about 18 percent of all gabacho inmates in state prisons; perverted Hispanics, conversely, made up just 11 percent (RLC, and over half of those are American citizens not illegal immigrants — strangely enough, the U.S. Department of Justice doesn’t keep the same statistics for federal prisons). According to this comparison, gabachos are more likely as a group to sexually assault you than Mexicans…”

Can an objective person stumble on the DSK’s work and accept it without an examination as done here? No.

Pearce spent decades in law enforcement; he knows law enforcement statistics. How could he possibly accept such shoddy work enough to quote it?

Simple explanation, he wants to believe such shoddy work because he wants reinforcement for his fantasy world of criminal illegal immigrants, criminal Mexicans. Between Pearce and DKS do we find the living embodiment of the word “charlatan?”

Defining DKS as a shoddy researcher and disseminator of fantasies is one thing; for a former Arizona State Senate President, recalled though he was, to be a current candidate for a new senate District in Arizona…that is a tragedy. He is not worthy.

Editors note: As with all postings on this blog which appear with a byline, the posting represents the author’s opinion and not the official position of Cafe Con Leche Republicans.

###

Raoul Lowery Contreras (1941) was born in Mexico, raised in the USA. Former U.S. Marine, athlete, Dean’s List at San Diego State. Professional political consultant and California Republican Party official(1963-65)…Television news commentator, radio talk show host…published Op-Ed writer (1988 to present)…author of 12 books (as of 1-05-12). His books are available on Amazon.com.

By Raoul Lowery Contreras (reposted with permission – original)

The biggest buffoon in American politics was either former KU Klux Klan (KKK) Grand Wizard David Duke or his friend, also a former KKK leader, California’s Tom Metzgar, Duke ran for various Lousiana political offices and Metzgar was the official Democratic candidate for the then (1980) most populous congressional district in the U.S.A.

Duke went to prison, a jury found Metzgar guilty of orchestrating the murder of an East African refuge in Portland, Oregon, and he was hit for millions of dollars in damages. He gave up his Fallbrook, California home and returned to the Midwest.

These two scourges of intelligence have disappeared. They are barely footnotes in modern American political history. There is a new buffoon politician that insults American intelligence. He resides in Arizona which is home to a gaggle of racist buffoon politicians. He, however, is the leader of the pack. Right behind him is Governor Jan Brewer who might be the only governor in the U.S.A. that did not attend a four-year college.

Meet Russell Pearce, former Number 2 man in the worst law enforcement agency in the U.S.A., the many-time-sued Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) led by Sheriff Joe Arpaio. He also served as director of the Arizona Motor Vehicle agency after he retired from MCSO. He was fired from that job for covering up criminal acts by a department employee.

He ran for the Arizona State Senate and won. He became the senate’s leader and there he did serious damage. His crowning achievement was sponsoring a flagrantly unconstitutional law labeled SB 1070. While it was making its way to the United States Supreme Court, Senate President Pearce was recalled by the voters of his Senate District. He was thrown out of office.

The Court declared his SB 1070 unconstitutional except for Section 2B which it remanded back to the lower courts to be adjudicated when it draws a law suit for denial of civil rights.

Despite his recall by the voters and rebuff of his sponsored law, Russell Pearce has come up with a new way to insult fellow Arizonans and fellow Americans; he is running for election back to the Senate in a newly drawn Senate District that is without an incumbent.

He will not win for three reasons: One, he has a substantial Republican opponent who is successful, well liked and has deep support for the August 28th Arizona Primary. Secondly the revelations that Pearce enjoyed thousands of dollars in illegal gifts from the Fiesta Bowl Association that sponsors the January college football bowl game in Arizona. The giver of these thousands of dollars of illegal gifts to Senator Pearce has pleaded guilty to crimes that benefited Russell Pearce.

The third reason is that voters are not always stupid. The Arizona American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has demanded copies of all e-mails and letters written by Pearce during his senate years. Part two will dissect his e-mails. Here are some Pearce statements for intelligent people to digest that should disturb intelligent adults in and out of Arizona:

Pearce: “*60% of the homicides in Phoenix involve illegal aliens;”*

Phoenix New Times*: “In 2008, the Phoenix PD cleared 51.8 percent of murders, the rest were left uncleared. How do you determine the immigration status of those involved in the remainder? By magic? Apparently Pearce has his own brand of hocus pocus.”*

Pearce has never offered any proof from either the Phoenix Police Department or from the Sheriff’s office, MCSO, or the FBI, because there isn’t any. The statement is a blatant lie.

Pearce:*”9,000 Americans [are] killed every year at the hands of illegal aliens.”*

*Phoenix New Times: “This oft-repeated bit of blarney originated with Rep. Steve King of Iowa (R), who supposedly “extrapolated” the information from a 2005 GAO report. Thing is, that statistic is nowhere in the GAO report itself, which discussed the number of criminal aliens in federal and state custody. The number of “9,000 Americans” murdered every year by criminal aliens is unsubstantiated.”*

It is a LIE!

Pearce: “*67 percent’ of law enforcement officers killed in ‘the last few years’ have been murdered by illegal aliens.”*

Pearce has never produced proof, not even newspaper reports, to support this statement. He can’t because there is no proof. His statement is a blatant lie.

We know that Pearce has lied so many times as a public official that it is a wonder he is not in prison for lying so much, for felony lying. For example, he told many people that his church, the Mormon Church supported his SB 1070, his anti-Mexican law the Supreme Court threw out as unconstitutional. The Mormon Church, he said, supported SB 1070. Lie! It did not support SB 1070. Pearce lies so much he might have believed his own Big Lie about the Mormon Church.

Editors note: As with all postings on this blog which appear with a byline, the posting represents the author’s opinion and not the official position of Cafe Con Leche Republicans.

###

Raoul Lowery Contreras (1941) was born in Mexico, raised in the USA. Former U.S. Marine, athlete, Dean’s List at San Diego State. Professional political consultant and California Republican Party official(1963-65)…Television news commentator, radio talk show host…published Op-Ed writer (1988 to present)…author of 12 books (as of 1-05-12). His books are available on Amazon.com.