Citizens Donate Half a Million Dollars to Arizona to Fight Federal Lawsuit

The Obama Administration is continuing to feel the heat over its decision to challenge the Arizona immigration law — a move making immigration a rallying cry for the November elections. With polls showing that citizens oppose the federal lawsuit two to one and that over sixty percent want similar laws in their own states, some Democrats are complaining that the Administration has put a nail in their political coffins. The level of anger on the issue is reflected by the astonishing level of financial support donated to Arizona: roughly $500,000 to pay for the state to fight the federal lawsuit.

Most donations are $100 or less but they appear to be pouring in. The controversy is also helping Gov. Jan Brewer in her reelection bid and hurting candidates like Majority Leader Harry Reid in nearby Nevada. Obama’s polling numbers continue to fall. Only 26% now strongly support him in the most recent poll while 54% disapprove of his performance in office. The key independent voter block is the most worrisome for the White House. In the latest Gallup poll, only 38% of independents now support Obama.

Despite these numbers and the opposition to the immigration policies, the Administration has been accused of pushing for a general amnesty for illegal immigrants.

I recently explored the immigration issue in the context of other unpopular policies recently in this column.

Source: Yahoo.

50 thoughts on “Citizens Donate Half a Million Dollars to Arizona to Fight Federal Lawsuit”

  1. Get caught in one of these while brown and not having ID?

    Get deported even if you were born here. The way the law is worded anyone can be stopped for anything and asked to produce proof of citizenship incident to a “lawful stop”. It’s lawful to stop someone and ask the time.

    And those Patriot Act/Guantanamo abuses?

    You obviously have never read this blog or you’d have seen plenty of outrage on that unconstitutional monstrosity and terrorist recruiting aid.

    Where’s your outrage at being ripped of by your union officials? You want to be mad at those hiring illegals? How about throwing some stones at your own glass house first. Or are you afraid you’ll get bumped down or off the job out list?

  2. From what I’ve read about the law and from laws already on the books, I fail to understand you’re point. exactly how is it ripe for abuse? Do you mean ripe for abuse like the patriot act which obama extended or ignoring habeas corpus for guantanimo prisoners. Where’s the public outrage there? I suppose it hasn’t been manufactured yet.

  3. Again, the issue isn’t policing illegals. It’s a vague law that’s ripe for abuse against American citizens.

  4. Apperantly no one hear thinks majority rule is of any importance. I also doubt any of you are in direct competition for employment with illegal immigrants. As a carpenter in chicago I most definately am. Back when I had work with the union
    2 years ago (now unemployed) a good pecentage of my co-workers were illegal. On the check they made 35 an hour like me, but the superintendant would pocket half of their checks, many of them are still working. Those who were laid off now compete with me for contracting work, and by not bothering to be licenced and insured are able to bid lower on work. Point being, illegal immigrants are an easily exploited group, as are immigrants in general. Which is why it’s in the interest of business and business alone that they want them to stay. So you can talk all you want about racism (black unemployment is far higher than immigrants) or xenophobia, to me these are just talking points to confuse the issue. I personally won’t support any immigration until the vast majority of americans are gainfully employed.

  5. Mojo

    Okay, everybody needs to calm down. This has turned into a love-fest, and without any physical contact that can be very deconstructive!


    … not if your Mojo’s workin’

    (sorry, sorry … blame AY … he’s brainwashed me)

  6. Okay, everybody needs to calm down. This has turned into a love-fest, and without any physical contact that can be very deconstructive!

    I think we’re all angry over the current administration’s “administration” but let’s not get carried away. In order to “serve the people” you must be willing to sell your soul. Do you think that you could hoodwink the public any better?

    Do you think that you have what it takes to tell stories on the campaign trail only to do a 180 when it’s crunch-time? Do you think that you can make promises that you never intend to keep?

    Didn’t think so …

    It takes a real pro to pull off that kind of B.S. and I doubt that any of you people really have it in you. I doubt that any of you could be real politicians.

    You just seem too decent.

  7. I agree with mespo and Blouise. FFLEO would make wise, thoughtful legislative decisions. And everyone would understand Buddha’s positions. The problem is always the second term. I live in Alan Grayson’s district. He beat a four-term Republican last time around. Needless to say, he is a major target in November. I’m confident that he will not change his tune, however, and we’ll see how far honesty goes.

  8. FFLEO:

    I think the majority of pols are self serving otherwise we wouldnt be in this mess.

  9. Byron,

    They were/are State legislators.

    Yes, I do not think that ol’ Buddha could ever be a “Politically Correct” politician but we would always know where he stood on every issue and that is of most importance.

    One additional thing I noted is that new politicians tend to go overboard on law making the first 2 terms in office. Their pet peeves/personal desires enter into the process, which often results in excess sponsorship of new bills that are sometimes self-serving and frivolous. Even State legislators wield a substantial amount of power and we know that power can corrupt even some of the better folks.

  10. FFLEO:

    were these local politicians or federal level? I have an opinion as to why they change, they get treated like royalty and someone is always sucking up to them to get a favor. They get told how great they are and it goes to their heads. Most are probably not very well grounded and have no real philosophy of life to guide them so they are always at the winds of public opinion.

    For example I don’t agree with Buddha all the time but I know if he were elected he would remain loyal to his principles and would not entertain any siren songs of wealth and power. He has a principle life philosophy and as such would work toward it’s implementation in reality, which is the essence of politics. Most people don’t have any fealty to principle and so are buffeted by random whim or they are influenced by people who do have core principles.

    Well any way that is my 2.5 cents worth.

  11. Byron,

    Fortunately, we have the courts to settle this—although any ruling either way will still leave 50-60% of the people very unsatisfied. This is just one of those issues that divide people and there seems to be no middle ground.

    The good people I know who entered politics changed dramatically. Although they are good legislators and still decent, hardworking people, something happens to politicians that changes their perspectives.

    Blouise, wise decision about not moving. I have already had several days of 113/114 degrees F. Thanks to all for the ‘votes of confidence’.

  12. Byron,

    The issue isn’t policing illegals. It’s a vague law that’s ripe for abuse against American citizens.

  13. Rhode Island supposedly has a similar law that has withstood legal tests. I haven’t read it but police supposedly can ask for proof of citizenship if stopping you for for another violation.

    Any thoughts? And if true how can the administration even prevail in a lawsuit against Arizona if legal precedence matters?

    If the Rhode Island law is similar and has been upheld by court challenge, it seems this is more about politics and pandering than any actual concern or compassion for illegals.

  14. FFLeo:

    “Furthermore, I am too much of an introvert.”


    We could use a few more introverts imbued with introspection instead of the blustering, bubble-brained buffoons who now inhabit the halls of power.

  15. Former Federal LEO,

    Introverts make the best public servants because they listen and only speak when there is something important to say. What you may see as a hindrance could quite possibly be one of your greatest strengths in the public arena.

    If you run for office I will move to AZ and vote for you … and I hate heat!

    Well, okay … I won’t move to AZ … but I will contribute cash to your campaign and I’ll take a couple months to come to AZ and do some door-knocking.

  16. Buddha,

    I appreciate those very kind words. Whatever qualities it takes to be a legislator, I simply do not possess. Furthermore, I am too much of an introvert.

    I accessed this blawg because I am concerned with the direction our country is headed and the diminishing rule of law. In the majority, I find some very bright minds herein, although we sometimes disagree substantively on some issues—such as *illegal* immigration and 2nd Amendment rights. That is fine; if I wanted outright concurrence with my views, I would go elsewhere.


    How many times I have learned the hard way that my parents were right on so many fronts. Laws are to be respected and followed until they require amending through peacefully lawful means.

  17. FFLeo:

    “I will follow the law to the letter and toward the direction it leads until that time I can help change any law I dislike through lawful measures via my legislators or a lawsuit.”

    Laws – if you can’t love ’em, you at least have to respect ’em. Kind of like parents that way-sometimes unappreciated until you see what they had to go through to get where they are.

  18. FFLEO,

    I say this fully acknowledging that we differ substantially on several topics, but aside from the fact that you might not want to “get any on you”, have you ever considered running for office in Arizona? A man with your background and obvious integrity would be a boon to any state’s system. It would be a return of the phrase “the honorable opposition”.

Comments are closed.