Why the Obama administration has the ‘right’ to sue Arizona...
Union Leader’s publication of the views of one ‘Enrique Mesa’ (an attorney, practicing immigration law in Manchester) and his co-author ‘George Bruno’ (a former ambassador in Central America) is, in my view, a rather pathetic propaganda piece advocating the breaking of US Law.
‘Enrique’ denigrates the illegal immigration issue in his fourth paragraph by summing up a litany of criminal acts taking place in Arizona (indeed, throughout the United States), by quoting John McCain saying that “illegal immigrants are bad drivers”. I can assure the attorney from Manchester that their driving skills are NOT what we Americans are overly concerned with.
‘Enrique’ would have us believe through implication (a cheap ‘lawyer’ trick), that somehow the US Constitution via the “supremacy clause” precludes Arizona’s attempts to address this issue within their jurisdiction. PURE B.S.!
The supremacy clause MANDATES that State courts and State judges uphold federal law and in Edgar v. Mite Corporation, 457 U.S. 624 (1982), the Supreme Court ruled that "A state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid Federal statute." Where’s the “conflict” with the existing federal criminal statues? We all know, there ARE laws within the Federal Register making illegally crossing our border a CRIME and where the “supremacy clause” instructs and mandates State courts and State judges to uphold federal law one could conclude (rightfully, I believe) that Arizona’s law is a codification of our Constitution’s “supremacy clause” rather than a usurpation thereof. The federal government has laws on the books prohibiting narcotic trafficking, as does New Hampshire (http:// www.snhu.edu/files/pdfs/StateofNewHampshireLaws.pdf). Should the feds and the DOJ fly into Concord and sue our State because we too have passed laws prohibiting narcotics trafficking within our jurisdiction? Get a clue ‘Enrique’.
He ‘implies’ that Arizona’s law “interferes with federal immigration laws” which is to say Arizona is obstructing justice which is what ‘interfering’ with federal officials would be and makes ‘misstatements’ (which is a kind and politically correct way to say he’s slinging BS) about “mandatory stopping and detention” while the fact is Arizona is attempting to see the Laws of the United States are implemented. It’s a CRIME for anyone to enter this country illegally, remember? You might also read Section 8 USC 1324 (a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii) wherein it’s a FELONY to “knowingly assist illegal aliens due to personal convictions” in any way.
By Enrique’s ridiculous and twisted logic were someone passing counterfeit bills in New Hampshire (this too is a federal crime) he might have us believe local law enforcement shouldn’t arrest suspects found to be violating these laws. Or, perhaps Arizona (and New Hampshire) shouldn’t be trying to enforce ANY federal law according to this half wit.
While the New Hampshire Bar Association requires ‘Enrique’ to “swear or affirm thatI will do no falsehood, nor consent that any be done in the court” it appears that it’s quite alright for him to obfuscate (defined as “to make so confused or opaque as to be difficult to perceive or understand”) the serious issue of widespread crime relating to people illegally crossing our borders. Since he practices “immigration law", perhaps it's good for business s eh?
Our federal government has carried out widespread deportations before. Hoover ordered the deportation of all illegal's, Truman deported another 2 million and Eisenhower a whole bunch more. Why, I wonder, are these 20 million or so any different?
Now, before ‘Enrique’ starts slinging the “racist” card at me because of my views here, let me just say that last time I checked with my personal friends who hail from Madrid, Spain, they foolishly thought they were “white people” and “Europeans” and thought Americans were “nuts” to make up a racial group called ‘hispanics’ out of whole cloth to further their political nonsense. Please don’t bore us with phony classifications of “racial” differences where none exist or terms like “multicultural descent” in the context of some downtrodden ‘minority’ as if anyone in North or South America can not claim to be of “multicultural descent”.
When the state troopers pull me over ‘Enrique’ they ask for my IDs. If I don’t have them, guess what? I get locked up. Shocking? We don’t need “comprehensive immigration reform”, we need the federal Law enforced just as the “supremacy clause” requires. President Obama’s job (which he swore to carry out) tasks him to enforce the laws of the United States.
Christopher T. Sununu
Mike J. Cryans
Russell E Prescott
Theodore L. Gatsas
Debora B. Pignatelli
Click on the above photos to read about each of our council members.