Arizona Officials: Obama’s “Backdoor Amnesty” Is “Destruction of Rule of Law”

Arizona officials reacted to Obama’s backdoor amnesty.

Arizona officials told reporters today that Barack Obama’s “backdoor amnesty” is “destruction of the rule of law.”
The Herald reported:

“It’s a pre-emptive strike against Senate Bill 1070. The timing is unbelievable,” Brewer said.

The Republican governor also said the change means that hundreds of thousands of people will be eligible for work permits and will compete with Americans and legal immigrants for jobs.

Brewer, who recently ordered police regulators to re-issue training material on implementing the Arizona law, said state officials will study the implications of Obama’s move.

“The crux of Senate Bill 1070, of course, is documentation, and what he has done by his announcement today is he’s going to give documentation to nearly a million people that have arrived in our country illegally and not by the rule of law.”

Both Brewer and Former Arizona Senate President Russell Pearce, the chief sponsor of the Arizona law and now president of the Ban Amnesty Now group, characterized the change as a “backdoor amnesty.”

“The effect is just the destruction of the rule of law,” said Pearce, who was upset by Obama’s announcement. “It’s a slap in the face to those who come here legally. It’s a slap in the face to the rule of law.”

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) threatened to sue the Obama Administration over their backdoor amnesty.

Get news like this in your Facebook News Feed,
Gateway Pundit

Facebook Comments

Disqus Comments

  • Pingback: Arizona Officials: Obama’s “Backdoor Amnesty” Is “Destruction of Rule of Law”|PolitifreakPolitifreak()

  • Rachelle

    So the moron decides to bypass Congress and stop enforcing the law.

    If the Sup Ct hasn’t decided in favor of Arizona, this is a clear signal to them tochange their minds and allow the States to enforce immigration laws. The Obama administration won’t do it.

  • Pingback: Arizona Officials: Obama’s “Backdoor Amnesty” Is “Destruction of Rule of Law”()

  • bg


    hey, it’s a free world!!

    what, that ain’t so??

    damn you America!!

    /gah!! sarc/


  • bg


    imho, a great read..

    Remember The Constitution?

    [And though any violation of core American principles should be troubling no matter why it happened, it’s worth considering the “why”of this situation. Obama was not stepping into a Constitutional grey area in order to protect Americans from an imminent threat. This was not a decision he was forced into. Today the fundamental beliefs of our founding fathers were tossed aside, simply to win the president a few Hispanic votes.

    The depth of cynicism behind this betrayal is, in my mind, nearly as bad as the betrayal itself. When one man’s political ploy is more important than the constitution, the rule of law and the separation of powers, what can you call that man other than a tyrant? If the danger facing this country wasn’t clear to you before, it should be now.]


  • Blacque Jacques Shellacque

    “The timing is unbelievable,”

    Why unbelievable?

    What makes anyone think that there is anything beyond this abomination of an administration?

  • FedUp

    Although it may be too late (if Romney wins), I think there should be impeachment proceedings against King Hussein Kardashian! If nothing else, it would be a giant distraction and drive Barky even more nutz than he already is!

  • bg


    ht Valerie #56

    June 15, 2012

    Mr. President: U.S. Latinos Respect the Constitution, Too

    [Obama’s crackdown was likely payback to his union supporters,
    who don’t like illegals very much: the sentiment was expressed
    long ago by Cesar Chavez, who famously referred to illegals as
    “human contraband” in congressional testimony. But when the
    Latino community cried foul over the deportations and the
    press got wind, the deportations stopped.


    I laugh when liberals try to convince me of George W. Bush’s supposed
    imperialism and lawlessness. And I have news for our president: not
    all Latinos are ignorant of the law; in fact, we American Latinos cherish
    our nation of laws. Some of us have studied our countries of origin, and
    now recognize when narcissistic thugs who sport the title “president”
    make unilateral decisions contradictory to established law or even their
    own prior claims.

    I caution Mr. Obama not to believe the cover of Time magazine featuring
    illegals that arrogantly proclaims: “We are Americans. Just not legally.” It
    takes more to be an American than simply declaring yourself one.

    The people of the world do not have a right to be an American. There is
    a process, as cumbersome as it is, to achieve that goal. It is my hope
    that legal U.S. Latinos will insist that the process of legal immigration be
    streamlined, while simultaneously insisting on the rule of law in the interim.

    Legal Latinos value the rule of law as codified in
    the Constitution. It’s part of being an American.

    Amen & thank you..


  • Buffalobob

    Raul Grijalva, our beloved La Raza activists stated it is a step in the right direction, does he mean the direction of radical La Raza supporters who want the whole South Western US turned into a separate Aztlan” — a fictional ancestral homeland of the Aztecs.

  • StrangernFiction

    Here is Mitt’s severely conservative reaction to Barry’s dictatorial action:

    Heads they win, tails we lose.

  • Andrew X

    Should not Arizona enforce the law as if the President never spoke? Just ignore him entirely? If the Feds are not happy, let them take it to court, and if they respond in some other way to twist Arizona’s arm, then let Arizona bring the case. Either way, if the president is acting outside his authority, should not that authority simply be ignored?

    I’ve been pretty proudly Union blue in a host of civil war discussions – an ancestor served with the Connecticut artillery at Gettysburg. But, boy howdy, do I find myself getting all statsey-rightsey of late. I’d say it’s time for states to come up with a clearly defined constitutional case, clearly spelled out for all to read and disseminate, of just what they think is (and more importantly, is not) the proper role of the Federal government, and then simply act accordingly on that case, and dare the Feds to try to force them to do otherwise.

    Simply put, we can accuse Barack I of being an ultimate totalitarian all we want, but in the end, I flat out don’t think he has the balls to light the kind of firestorm that would rise if he sincerely tried to put the hurt on a state acting under such an aegis.

    And it almost seems as though we are already inching toward that precipice, step by step, this and the Florida voter registration issue as examples.

  • lizzy84

    What oBama did yesterday is the move of a pure tyrant. There’s just no way to mask it as anything else. What will he do next? Declare suspending the fairness doctrine is the “right thing to do for Americans” and shut down radio stations or leak more information to our enemies to make himself look good? It’s time to bring this to a stop. The GOP needs to start the process of impeachment investigations. This pResident is out of control.

    If you haven’t contacted your Senators and Congressmen, here’s the links:

  • BS61

    I am unfortunate to live in hot AZ because I have work. This is the only thing Jan Brewer has going for her. A true conservative would never raise taxes or Veto the right to buy healhcare across state lines. I will never vote for her!

  • http://. WillofLa

    There’s no way a 30 year old was a child who has gone to school here soon after they got here, obviously has been here for five years, now is legal to work? That’s amnesty, plain and simple. Okay let’s back it up. The illegal is 25, has been here for five years, that would mean they got here when they were 20. That’s not a child, like a little kid who went to elementary school, junior high, high school, graduated, has been working or in college, somehow, or the military, and got out on a honorable discharge, is now legal to work? That’s amnesty any way you look at it. And again the kid comes here when they were ten, somehow they made it through school, or have been on the street and were never in trouble is now eligible to work? That’s amnesty there’s just no other way to look at it, Obama is a dictator who calls the shots.

    He says Congress still has time to pass the “Dream Act” ? What does that mean? Why should they wait, Obama has almost passed three fouths of it already. All they have to do is just wait a couple more months after the Obama administration checks out to see if Obama got a bounce from this illegal move he just made, and then he’ll probably go ahead and pass the rest of it.


  • BS61

    #7 June 16, 2012 FedUp commented: Sorry, Romney’s reply was a typical wimp answer that actually agreed with Obama!

    I’ll vote for him over our current Communist in Cheif, but a RINO is not the answer. Trust me, we Tea types can be relentless as I proved calling wimp McConnell’s office daily. His staff would ask me if I’m in his district, I said no, but he’s screwing all American’s s I’ll stop calling when he stops!

  • Pingback: Arizona Officials: Obama’s “Backdoor Amnesty” Is “Destruction of Rule of Law” | The Navigator()

  • aprilnovember811

    Obama’s dictate should be ignored. It’s illegal.
    June 16, 2012
    If We Took the Constitution Seriously, Obama Would Be Impeached
    Michael Filozof

    If the citizens of this Republic still took the Constitution seriously, Obama would be impeached for his decision to unilaterally grant amnesty to certain illegal aliens.
    Article 1, Sec. 8 of the Constitution, which enumerates the power of Congress, states that “Congress shall have the Power To… establish an [sic] uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Congress has passed numerous laws pertaining to immigration and naturalization, including laws requiring the deportation of illegals.
    The role of the President, according to Article II, Sec. 3, is to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Obama’s refusal to execute Congress’s immigration laws (or, for that matter, Congress’s Defense of Marriage Act) is an impeachable offense. Article II, Sec. 4 states that the President “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for… Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.” The deliberate failure to enforce valid immigration law and allow hordes of foreigners to live and work in the U.S. is, arguably, “treason,” and doing so in an election year to appease Hispanic voters could certainly be considered “bribery.”
    In theory, Obama could exercise his power in Article II, Sec 2. to “grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States” and offer a blanket pardon for all violators of immigration law. He’s not doing that, because he’d certainly lose in November if he did. (However we should be concerned that if he does lose in November, he’ll do it anyway on his last day in office).
    The upshot of Obama’s policy not only to allow hundreds of thousands of illegals to live and work in the U.S. during a time of 8 to 10% unemployment, but even worse, since the vast number of illegals we’re talking about are Hispanics eligible for affirmative-action preferences, to actually get preferential treatment over native-born Americans.
    Remember Obama’s speech in Berlin in 2008? Well, now you know what “citizen of the world” means: instituting an illegal and unconstitutional policy that favors Third Worlders, and disadvantages people actually born as U.S. citizens.
    Of course, he’ll get away with it… if you think the gutless Republicans in the House actually represent the interests of their native born constituents and will introduce articles of impeachment, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you….

    Read more:

  • aprilnovember811

    Andrew X,
    You’re right. If Congress is complicit in this, by doing nothing about him, like impeaching him, it should be ignored. He’s telling Border Agents and ICE Agents to break the law. Mitt Romney and Marco Rubio have failed miserably in their response to this. I don’t like either of them, and no longer trust Rubio, since he obviously condones high crimes and misdemeanors.

  • aprilnovember811

    Is he going to arm these illegals to take on American citizens? Is he going to issue a dictate that they vote? The Republicans who don’t stop him are breaking the law by not stopping him.

  • Eric Simpson

    Repubs are never going to win Hispanics… no matter what we do.
    BUT, if we lose the immigration battle, a flood of left voting Hispanics will empower an absolute open borders policy. No kidding. A de facto merger with Mexico. Borders without guards. Once the Hispanics, and white liberal allies, gain a
    democratic stronghold, they’ll tilt the playing field, and America as we know it is done. Stand up, it’s now or never.