Emmer statement on Arizona immigration ruling

Posted at 8:28 PM on July 28, 2010 by Tom Scheck (6 Comments)
Filed under: Campaign 2010, Campaign 2010: Minnesota Governor

Republican gubernatorial hopeful Tom Emmer released a statement on a judge's ruling that blocks part of Arizona's new immigration law. Here's the statement from Emmer (via release):

Every state has the constitutional authority, even the obligation to protect it's citizens from any threat to the safety of their person or their property.

The Court in this case ignores the real constitutional question in an attempt to justify the federal government's failure to secure our borders and create a realistic, consistent, easy to understand path to citizenship. We need to encourage immigrants who still desire the freedom and opportunity the United States is supposed to offer to enter this country legally and, further, to become productive and contributing members of the community.

Comments (6)

it's = it is

Court ignores constitutional question? Does Emmer once again proclaim the Emmer Doctrine that he proposed earlier in his career as a state legislator. His bizarre proposed amendment to the Minnesota State constitution would allow federal laws to be ignored as Minnesotans were to be declared "sovereign individuals."

It is (not it's) hard to believe that the GOP actually nominated Mr. Emmer despite his absurd positions on this and other fundamental constitutional issues such as the separation of church and state, the right to privacy, and an attempt to put dispensation of contraceptives at a pharmacist's discretion. So many ways to be wrong.

From the NYT:

Arizona’s lawyers contended that the statute was written to complement federal laws. Judge Bolton rejected that argument, finding that four of its major provisions interfered or directly conflicted with federal laws.

The Arizona police, she wrote, would have to question every person they detained about immigration status, generating a flood of requests to the federal immigration authorities for confirmations. The number of requests “is likely to impermissibly burden federal resources and redirect federal agencies away from priorities they have established,” she wrote.

Posted by Bill Gleason | July 28, 2010 9:07 PM

Would this statement be legal in Lino Lakes?

Posted by Erik Mitchell | July 28, 2010 10:07 PM

Do you seriously expect someone like Emmer to know the difference between it's and its?

Posted by John Thiel | July 29, 2010 2:57 PM

Sure glad we don't have to figure out the meaning of "is" again. Sheesh!

Guess State sovereignty and local governance is lost in Minnesota. Sad!

If ruling stands, wait 'til feds decide "you're not cooperating".

Right on Governor Brewer and go Arizona!

Posted by Peacenic | July 30, 2010 11:11 AM

This is a federal matter, and interfering in federal immigration enforcement activities, and especially interfering in employment applications and employment decisions asserting state immigration authority is a bad idea. In view of Emmer's interest in this, I would like Congress to pass a pre-emptive law that protects applicants and employers against interference and against state fines and penalties. In an era when job growth and economic growth are at risk, we should not burden anyone with more threats and police intervention for working in jobs where they are needed. ICE and I-9's should still be required, but trying to create a "deterrent" to immigration by punishing employers and job applicants in the name of enforcing immigration is detrimental to our economy and violates the constitutional right to enter into contracts, to work and to own private property (businesses) and operate it free of unwarranted state interference. Visit my website www.stevecarlsonforcongress2010.com to see my proposal and discussion of the higher law of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which created a good neighbor relation between the United States and Mexico, and promised cultural, language and political rights for Mexican Americans. I would also like to create U.S. jobs in the border states that are not just building fences and guarding the Rio Grande. We can move factories back to the U.S. instead of just in Mexico or China, etc.

Posted by Steve Carlson | July 31, 2010 9:33 AM

So, if it's unconstitutional for a state to enforce a federal law, then no city, county, or state law enforcement officer is obliged or allowed to arrest someone suspected of committing a federal crime (e.g., bank robbery, interstate kidnapping). That, in my view, is the absurdity of Judge Bolton's ruling.

Posted by HalfNorsk | August 2, 2010 4:29 PM

Services

• Hourly Newscast
• HD Radio
• iPhone App / Mobile
• E-mail newsletters
• RSS feeds
• Podcasts
• Submit your photos
• Videos
• Weather
• Most e-mailed stories