The Daily Caller

The Daily Caller

Republican governors defend Arizona law, without defending its constitutionality

Conservative governors of states along the U.S.-Mexico border on Monday declined to argue that Arizona’s recently passed immigration law is constitutional, though they expressed support on the grounds that the federal government has failed to act.

“It’s OK for states to take reasonable and appropriate measures to enforce the laws, and I think that’s what Arizona is trying to do,” said Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who is a leading candidate to be the Republican party’s presidential nominee in 2012.

“I think what you’re seeing here is a frustration by Arizona, an understandable frustration, that their concerns haven’t been addressed by the federal government,” Pawlenty said in an interview with The Daily Caller after participating in a meeting with other governors at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

“As to the constitutionality of it, that will be decided by the courts shortly,” he said.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, also a Republican, was vigorous in condemning the federal government’s lack of action on securing the border over the last several years, blaming the Obama administration, the Bush administration and the Congress.

Perry said he has been asking for the federal government to do more – particularly to position aerial drones along the border – since 2005. The response from the Federal Aviation Administration, and from the rest of the federal government on all other border enforcement issues, has been “stunningly slow,” he said.

“This is slower than getting the governor’s mansion refurbished back in Texas,” Perry said.

Perry, who is something of a firebrand, did not answer the question directly when asked if the Arizona law is unconstitutional. He focused his answer on the federal government’s “abject failure” to secure the border but did not address the specific legal question.

“Do your job,” Perry said, addressing the federal government. “Don’t force us to be taking action.”

Perry indicated that it would be counterproductive if each state took matters into its own hands.

“That last thing we need is 50 different immigration policies,” Perry said.

President Obama has said the Arizona law – which gives state and local law enforcement officers the ability to ask for proof of citizenship or lawful presence in the country after they have pulled someone over or apprehended someone they suspect of breaking the law – is “misguided.” He has asked the Justice Department to examine legal challenges.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, has said he suspects the law is unconstitutional.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a Democrat, said there is no doubt in his mind that the bill violates the Constitution, which sets out in Article 1, Section 8 that Congress has the power “to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.”

“I don’t think the law is constitutional. I think the Obama administration should challenge it,” Richardson told The Daily Caller.

But Richardson also, during the Chamber of Commerce event, said that “every state has a right to do what they want.”

Asked to clarify, he said: “What I meant was states need to act, and we’re independent, we’re sovereign. It doesn’t mean they can do whatever they want.”

“Just because [the federal government is] not acting doesn’t mean they don’t have jurisdiction. And I think they’re acting. They’re not, like, not doing anything. We’ve had dramatic increases in border patrol and National Guard and technology but it’s obviously not enough.”

E-mail Jon Ward and follow him on Twitter

  • Pingback: Let Freedom Ring » Blog Archive » Minnesota Politics And AZ Immigration Bill

  • rick013

    Richardson is an open border advocate, and has made New Mexico a sanctuary state.

    Perry has dreams of sitting in the witless house someday, and he allows Houston to be one of several sanctuary cities in Texas. Folks will soon discover that he is a bad joke like mclame.

    Pawlenty of Minnesota wants to be the rep nominee for pres in 2012. Of course, he’s not going to support the AZ law. He would lose the illegal vote.

  • Pingback: Pawlenty Becomes Latest Republican Afraid To Take A Clear Position On AZ Anti-Immigration Law | No Bull. news service.

  • doncicciofitipaldi

    But of course, the Republicans use the Constitution only when it serves them politically. The HC bill is unconstitutional, but this law….now it’s just fine and dandy. Yehhhhh=Hahhhh

  • elektramourns

    You have to have “probable cause” to stop anyone regardless of color. Does AZ have the manpower and jails and judges to handle this problem? Where is the national solution?

    • katnandu

      ICE is supposed to step in and enforce the laws of this country. We will see if they will do their job. The bill was written because they are NOT doing their job!

  • katnandu

    Grow some!

  • seekingtounderstand

    republicans fear not, just go with I support safe borders help me stamp out border crimes against innocent latinos. Most Americans are for stopping the horrific crimes going on along our borders.

  • thekid11

    how do you think it would go, if i climbed over the wall of the kennedy compound or some hollywood stars home and took up residence in one of their unoccupied rooms…would they have me arrested and thrown out or would they welcome me with open arms? i don’t mean them any harm, i just see opportunity and ‘greener’ grass on their side of the wall.

    this is akin to trespassing. who cares why they are here illegally, if they get caught send them back to wherever is home. liberals will argue (although all they want is to grant amnesty for a lifetime of free votes) that it is profiling and that people come to take jobs americans won’t do. in reality, illegals work for much less and drive wages down causing americans to not want those jobs…paid a fair or competitve wage, i doubt citizens would not take these jobs.

  • xyzpdq

    Just a question: was it within the rights of state and local police to require proof of citizenship prior to the new law? I guess I always thought that being here without documentation was illegal, and I assumed all laws were enforceable. This law, whether it proves to be constitutional or not, is proving to be a great catalyst for educating people about how far short our immigration laws fall.

    • badmotherfarker

      I think it has more to do with the reason a person can be stopped. Can you stop someone just because you suspect they may be here illegally?

      • xyzpdq

        I think the “cause” clause has always been a part of the law enforcement equation. I know they added it to the new bill. But, my confusion is, prior to the new law, were the police prohibited from enforcing the law when a person was found to be here illegally (during an inquiry or arrest for cause). It’s just unimaginable that border states have no recourse for illegal residents. So, I’m thinking I’m missing something.

        • badmotherfarker

          I’m quite sure they could act if people were found to be illegal after being detained for some sort of violation. Again, I think the issue here is the verbage in the law. It seems to allow for detaining people due to suspicion of being illegal (ie, being Mexican). Here’s a Washington Post article from today talking about this:

          http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/05/the_authors_of_arizonas_immigr.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

        • sandra3dee

          You aren’t missing anything. Having lived in Arizona and now Texas, both have “Santuary cities”. Places where the illegal immigration federal laws are not enforced. Large and somewhat powerful lobbies for illegal immigration have developed in these cities as a result.

          • seekingtounderstand

            All illegals please report to santurary cities…anyone who supports lawlessness gets lawlessness

      • katnandu

        You can’t stop them for that alone in this bill.