Jul 29 2010

“Remember Arizona!”

In World War II the rallying cry was “Remember the Arizona”- to recall the attack on Pearl Harbor and unite in fighting for the survival of the nation and its unique constitutional form of government. It is ironic how the cycle of human history can evolve around something so innocuous as a name.

In 2010, the rallying cry for the elections will be “Remember Arizona”, where the socialist-progressive forces had the 2nd Pyrrhic victory of the year:

A Pyrrhic victory (pronounced /ˈpɪrɪk/) is a victory with devastating cost to the victor; it carries the implication that another such will ultimately cause defeat.

The first Pyrrhic Victory of course was the destruction of our health care system, a system now so cruel that special needs families are being punished with brutal new taxes:

5. The“Special Needs Kids Tax” takes effect Jan. 1, 2013: This provision of Obamacare imposes a cap on flexible spending accounts (FSAs) of $2500 (Currently, there is no federal government limit). There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education.

This is rationing, plain and simple. These tax hikes are the results of behind the door death-panel deliberations. This is unconscionable, since all the FSA’s do is make sure special needs are taken care of by the family with pre-tax dollars. Uncle Sam has surely become a greedy old miser under the Pelosi-Reid-Obama ‘regime’ if he must steel money from special needs kids.

But the completely bogus and propaganda-riddled court decision on the Arizona immigration law will be universally felt across this nation – and rejected for the lie it is. This is the 2nd Pyrrhic Victory.

We all have seen court shopping, but this incident was ridiculous. The Judge wrote an opinion against something that was not even in front of her, completely irrelevant to the case. She twisted the language of the law to create a myth (apparently the only talent a socialist-progressive has).

In enjoining Arizona’s landmark immigration law, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton maintains the Obama administration’s carefully cultivated fiction: that what concerns the White House regarding S.B. 1070 is its effect on legal, rather than illegal, aliens. Almost nowhere in the government’s briefs or the judge’s ruling is the arrest and detention of illegal aliens addressed.

The only lawful aliens to whom the judge could point who would not necessarily have proof of status “readily available” to them, however (neither the federal government nor the judge asserted that proof of status was “unavailable” to such individuals), were visitors from visa-waiver countries, asylum applicants who have not yet received a green card, victims of certain enumerated crimes such as trafficking who are assisting law enforcement, and women who have petitioned for relief under the Violence Against Women Act. But presumably the lawful status of such aliens would be known to the federal government. If an Arizona officer inquired into those aliens’ immigration status, ICE would tell the officer that the person is authorized to be in the country, ending the investigation.

Andy McCarthy also weighs in:

The Arizona law is completely consistent with federal law. The judge, however, twisted to concept of federal law into federal enforcement practices (or, as it happens, lack thereof). In effect, the court is saying that if the feds refuse to enforce the law the states can’t do it either because doing so would transgress the federal policy of non-enforcement … which is nuts.

The judge also employs a cute bit of sleight-of-hand. She repeatedly invokes a 1941 case, Hines v. Davidowitz, in which the Supreme Court struck down a state alien-registration statute. In Hines, the high court reasoned that the federal government had traditionally followed a policy of not treating aliens as “a thing apart,” and that Congress had therefore “manifested a purpose … to protect the liberties of law-abiding aliens through one uniform national system” that would not unduly subject them to “inquisitorial practices and police surveillance.” But the Arizona law is not directed at law-abiding aliens in order to identify them as foreigners and subject them, on that basis, to police attention. It is directed at arrested aliens who are in custody because they have violated the law. And it is not requiring them to register with the state; it is requiring proof that they have properly registered with the federal government — something a sensible federal government would want to encourage.

The decision makes no sense at all. Does that mean state law enforcement cannot participate in any aspect of federal law? Both states and the federal government have gun laws. In VA we use the federal gun law as a way to send violent criminals to jail for a minimum sentence. It is up to the state to determine the use of the federal gun law, and append its penalties to any parallel state laws. How about when states modify social security or medicare laws, or interpret education laws?

Whoever this ‘judge’ is she is beyond activist – she’s seeing things. As McCarthy notes, the answer for Americans is simple:

The upshot of it is to tell Americans that if they want the immigration laws enforced, they are going to need a president willing to do it, a Congress willing to make clear that the federal government has no interest in preempting state enforcement, and the selection of judges who will not invent novel legal theories to frustrate enforcement. They are not going to get that from the Obama/Reid/Pelosi Democrats.

You can be a fan of the ridiculous concept of deporting or chasing all illegals from the country and this decision of course bothers the heck out of you. No doubt these people will be lining up out the door to vote in November.

But you can also be a fan of the more realistic Bush-Kyle-McCain approach of setting up a process to document migrant workers, limit their time here, throw out the violent criminals for life if they commit a single violent crime (after doing their time of course) and for long term illegals to be provided a one-time option to pay back taxes and penalties and become legally documented – and this act also bothers the heck out of you. Because no matter what, we cannot have open borders and lawlessness. There are only a few doe-eyed liberal know-nothings who believe in complete anarchy along our borders.

If there are no laws, or the laws are gleefully ignored on a select basis by the nut jobs who are in power in DC, then we don’t have a constitutional government for the people and by the people. We would have become vassals to imperial Lords & Lady’s who do as they please and demand we pay for their luxuries, greed and debauchery (i.e., taxes).

Arizona is rapidly being stripped of its American roots, becoming more a way-station for the destitute to migrate to the point where they will be abused by greedy employers, renters, insurance agents, check cashers – and yes pols who want votes so they can stay suckled to the government till. The violence and destruction of this wave of humanity is blatantly obvious, requiring even the federal government to put up warning signs to keep Americans out of now dangerous areas of America.

Without laws America is gone – and this is a simple and basic set of laws we are dealing with here. You have to be in this country legally to live and work here, not to mention suck off the government services. So here we sit in 2010, with a rallying cry to save our unique constitutional government that has echoed through the decades of our history from a different kind of battle. We will still “Remember Arizona“, as we line up in November to save this wonderful and unique shining city on the hill.

20 responses so far

20 Responses to ““Remember Arizona!”

  1. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Free To Prosper, AJ Strata. AJ Strata said: new: <i>"Remember Arizona!"</i> http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/13817 […]

  2. AJ,

    These two sentances from Mark Levin’s analysis over at the NRO corner blog of the Arizona vs US Decision cover it:
    This is a typical example of a judge stating the correct legal standard, but then ignoring it and applying the test in a fashion completely divorced from the facts of the case in order to reach a predetermined decision.
    I think the word “abomination” does not overstate this court’s decision.
    IOW, we have another Rasul v. Bush or Roe V Wade type decision by a lower Federal Court.

  3. AJ,

    Aother one of the commenters on the NRO made the comment that this proves there cannot be any “grand bargain” on immigration, because the lefties will never stop the lawsuits.

    The Botton Line Up Front:

    Any enforcement legislation enacted as part of the bargain will be constantly attacked in court, where the judges will stay its enforcement until the Supreme Court tells them not to.

    For each law. </i.

    I.e., amnesty will in any bargain will be effective immediately, but enforcement won’t happen for 20-30 years even if the judicial system eventually upholds all the bargain’s enforcement laws.

    Compromise simply is not possible with lefties…on immigration or anything else.

    This is a prescription for civil war.

  4. Neo says:

    The latest story I personally got was that the insurance companies are now putting CHIP applicants on a 3-year (till O-care kicks in) waiting list, even if the miss a payment, thus rendering it useless.

  5. hekktor says:


    A well-written essay on this decision. Since I have repeatedly had exchanges with you on this topic, it behooves me to acknowledge when you get it mostly right.

    My only quibble is where you said, “You can be a fan of the ridiculous concept of deporting or chasing all illegals from the country and this decision of course bothers the heck out of you. No doubt these people will be lining up out the door to vote in November.”

    This is an unfair characterization of the position that I favor, but is closer to my position than your alternative.

    A more accurate of my position is very close to Arizona’s concept: arrest them where you find them.

    Arizona would arrest them from a normal traffic stop. It’s done every day for DUI’s, drug possession, even reckless driving, or outstanding warrants.

    As Arizona’s press has established, illegals have been packing up and leaving voluntarily. No raids. No additional documentation requirements. Arizona’s illegal population has been reported to be returning in part to Mexico and in part leaving better American climes. All at a cost of few more of Sheriff Joe’s tents.

    Enforcement works because the fear of losing liberty (even ICE’s non-criminal holding facility) is far more powerful than the threat of raids.

  6. hekktor says:

    I forgot to mention a story to make my point.

    Several years ago, a business client of mine was driving home from work on a Saturday of federal holiday weekend on a US highway which bisected a tony suburb. His Escalade got pulled over and he was arrested on an outstanding warrant.

    As a business attorney, I learned a lot about criminal law that weekend. I spent most of the weekend trying to persuade prosecutors in two different counties and the judge issuing the warrant that the underlying charge was not against him. Surprisingly, I succeeded.

    When I finally got to see my client, he was mad at the police because he was pulled over for reckless driving and ended up in jail. He swore that he would never get another speeding ticket because he did not ever want to be in lock up again.

    A normal traffic stop is that powerful and encourages long-term legal compliance. Deprive the traffic stop of that threat to law breakers? Is that wise?

  7. Frogg1 says:

    I’m with Trent Telenko. Border security has to come first. It’s time to stop holding border security hostage to amnesty. Once the borders are secure, then I am with AJ. It would then be time to have an honest, forthright, and humane discussion on what to do with those who are here illegally.

  8. […] fund Grayson’s Greatest Hits DVD – hotair.com 07/29/2010 Self-promotion. more… “Remember Arizona!” – strata-sphere.com 07/29/2010 In World War II the rallying cry was “Remember the […]

  9. Wilbur Post says:

    The Obama Administration is a bigger disaster than 10 oil spills.

  10. AJStrata says:


    While I find the idea of deporting or chasing 20 million illegals out of the country ridiculous, I do not extend that to mean anyone who believes that in this is ridiculous on everything. Just because someone may be wrong on some thing, doesn’t make them a failure overall.

    Some people hold naive and ridiculous views on space, science, math, etc. Doesn’t mean they are not upstanding and wonderful people. It just means I may have had the opportunity to learn more or see the matter clearer. BTW, these are just examples, not analogies.

    One thing to learn in life is how to be wrong. I have become an expert, which is probably how I was able to learn so much. Once you can be wrong without guilt or embarrassment, then you can move onto to figuring out the right answer almost immediately.

    Hanging on to outdated or erroneous concepts truly is a waste of time.

  11. Frogg1 says:

    Rick Perry: “If you don’t secure the border, you’re never going to have immigration reform”

  12. Terrye says:


    I agree with you on this issue. I have a feeling that whatever policy these people come up with it will make Bush look downright Bucchaninite in comparison. Bush tried to find common ground and the people on the left thought he was too far right and the people on the right thought he was too far left and now we are stuck with these clowns.

    Arizona has the right to make its citizens safe. I don’t think the Democrats really know how frustrated a lot of these people are.

    They are just counting on the old divide and conquer policy to keep on working for them.

    The truth is this problem was allowed to go on for decades and now the idea that we can get rid of all these people is probably unrealistic. Reagan sure did not want to send them packing and neither did Clinton, so here we are.

  13. Terrye says:


    I think the border should be secured. I have heard Krauthammer say that if the border is secured then we can have normalization of some of the people here. I think he means that, but I think there are a lot of people out there on the right who would start screaming shamnesty if any such thing were done no matter how secure the border was…and I also think there are people on the left who could care less about border security and the truth is there are plenty of people on both sides of this issue who have shown no inclination at all to compromise.

  14. dbostan says:

    Finally a 75% reasonable AJ posting about this subject.
    One of the effects of the Arizona law is that illegals self deported out of the state. I do not know what percentage, but it must have been substantial, hence the screaming and the protests.
    Imagine what happens when the law is implemented nationally and the employers are sent to jail for employing illegals.
    Perp walk the employers and send them to 20-25 years to jail, like that guy from Iowa ho got 25 years.
    Couple that with NO benefits of any kind for illegals, their spouses and their children, and after a couple of years of attrition, I am certain there will not be a need for amnesty, as there will not be anybody to ask for it.
    No deportation, just enforce the laws.
    But, that is not the intention of the ruling class, who only works to destroy our country and enslave us.

  15. kathie says:

    I live in Colorado. We have many people working here who I’m not sure are legal, they are really hard workers and terrific people. President Bush described the people I know perfectly. I also realize that there many people here illegally who are not terrific people. Every country needs immigrants, we are fortunate that most of the people who come to this country are very much like us. What if we close the boarders and find a way to open our doors wider. We give immigrants working visas to stay here for 10 years say, that need to be renewed and can be quite easily, with some kind of tracking system, like is done with a credit card. They can’t become citizens unless they apply and then there is a waiting time, that fits our needs as a country. Not all workers would become citizens, but could work here and go back home when they wanted. Many of the workers want to go home and settle with family and friends. I lived in a country, not America for many years and never considered becoming a citizen. I renewed my visa periodically and worked. But because I wasn’t a citizen I couldn’t vote, couldn’t collect whatever you collect when you retire, I was considered a non-permanent resident. A residency card could be swiped, like a credit card and traced if need be. We would have to register the people here, and that would be a logistics problem but it could be done. After 2 years if you were not registered, you were sent home if picked up, no questions asked. Just a thought.

  16. Terrye says:

    kathie, that was a very sensible post. Very good.

  17. WWS says:

    Agree, that’s a plan that could work, Kathy. From a strictly practical view, a plan *has* to have an incentive to self-report, and that incentive has got to be a benefit for them that is not “you don’t go to jail.” It’s too easy to stay hidden otherwise – we’re already well on our way to creating a permanent underclass, and this is probably our last chance to prevent that before it becomes permanently entrenched in society.

    I saw a clip of Chris Matthews the other night crying about how shrill the issue had gotten and singing the praises of a grand compromise he envisioned as the only way out. I listened for a minute and wanted to grab him by the throat – he was describing the Bush plan as though he had just thought of it himself. I remember how bitterly he criticized it at the time! And now it’s something brilliant and shiny and new. Well that chance is gone, bucko.

  18. kathie says:

    Oh WOW……..Obama needs another View visit!

    President Obama Job Approval

    RCP Average

    Approve 45.7
    Disapprove 49.5
    Spread -3.8

    This is the first time I’ve seen it in the 45’s.

  19. Neo says:

    Does this mean that if a federal employee were to be attacked (or such), a federal crime, that state and local police would have to stand down so as not to create a burden on the federal authorities ?

  20. hekktor says:


    I appreciate your clarification on the boundaries of what you are describing as ridiculous: limiting it to the ideas. Good practice of avoiding ad hominem arguments.

    Still, I return to my point, allowing for your limitation of the ridiculousness, it makes little sense to worry about raids or aggressive and invasive enforcement, if “arrest them where you find them” is so effective. It IS NOT effective BECAUSE of the numbers arrested.

    It IS effective BECAUSE of the numbers who BEGIN complying with the law to AVOID arrest.

    Back in the early 1990’s the newly freed states of Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia had huge budgetary problems. They had high tax rates with poor collections. Ultimately it meant that they did not have enough tax revenue.

    They found that lower the tax rate, simplifying the tax code, and increasing expectations of payment created a huge rush of compliant tax payments.

    Enforcement-first immigration needs to follow the same model. If the immigration status regulations require too many lawyers, make the law simpler, don’t add new forms of visas (e.g., illegal immigrant turned guest worker visas). Make enforcement simpler: arrest them where you find them. Expect compliance.

    That will result in a huge surge of newly compliant immigrants. It will actually reduce costs of enforcement and ancillary costs of illegal immigrants.

    Complex laws and difficult enforcement are the hallmarks of machine politicians. They do favors to reduce the costs of compliance without changing the law. Adding visa options makes similar compliance problems the unintended consequence.

    That is why “comprehensive immigration reform” was a farce. It would sow confusion, compliance nightmares, huge amounts of work for lawyers like me (a/k/a $$), and little resolution of our current plight.

    Look at Arizona’s THREAT of real enforcement. The illegals were packing up and leaving. Boy, that was expensive.