April 28th, 2010
02:47 PM ET

Tea Partiers to illegal immigrants: 'Sign guestbook'

Lee Earle, left, and Ronald Ludders of Phoenix support Arizona's new immigration law.

Lee Earle, a self-identified “Tea Party facilitator” in Arizona, ground zero of the immigration debate, wants you to know that he supports immigration. He considers it the lifeblood of American society and the backbone of our economy – if it’s done legally.

“We want immigration. We need immigration! All we want is for people to sign the guestbook at the door,” said Earle, a Phoenix resident. “Being an illegal immigrant in Arizona is like trespassing. If you’re in my house and you’re not invited, then I have every right to send you out.”

Earle says he supports Arizona’s controversial new law targeting illegal immigration because it lets local law enforcement do what the federal government should be doing to stop people from entering the country unlawfully.

“When people come here without permission, when they come here illegally, they automatically become victims of the coyotes who bring them over and the employers who take advantage of their cheap labor,” Earle said. “Let them come legally so they can take advantage of all the wonderful services and opportunities this great nation has to offer and they can contribute in a meaningful way.”

Earle, a loquacious retiree who gesticulates frequently as he fires off in a stream-of-consciousness manner, shared his thoughts Tuesday night before a legislative district meeting at the Jumbo Buffet in a strip mall in southwest Phoenix.

Dressed in a Hawaiian shirt and jeans, his long gray hair pulled back, Earle said he blames health care, education and incarceration for illegal immigrants for contributing to the state’s $2 billion budget deficit.

“It’s a monetary thing for the state, because I’m a taxpayer but also a human concerned because they can’t take advantage of our legal system because they’re afraid of being deported,” he said.

Earle’s friend and fellow Tea Partier Ronald Ludders dismissed with a wave of the hand the suggestion that the bill encourages racial profiling.

“Illegal is not a race," said Ludders, who, like Earle, is a Republican precinct committeeman for his legislative district. “Law enforcement will be looking for people who they have reasonable suspicion to believe are breaking the law. They cannot stop them based on the color of their skin.”

Both men say this is not about hating Hispanics: Ludders has a home in Mexico, and Earle lives in a predominantly Hispanic neighborhood.

“This is about fixing a problem that has been plaguing our communities for a long time. If the federal government isn’t going to do anything, I’m proud of Arizona for stepping up to the plate,” Earle said.

Post by:
Filed under: Arizona • Immigration • U.S.
soundoff (1,254 Responses)
  1. doggsho

    The Bush dynasty advocated and ushered in the so-called "new world order", which decrees that our local economy be integrated into a world economy. So this new plying field dictates that businesses that are "global in scope harness "global' resources to facilitate their endeavours, which include dirt cheap labor.

    April 29, 2010 at 3:13 am | Report abuse |
  2. Waitaminute

    Moose...put down the bottle and go to sleep. Perhaps tomorrow you'll have a little more compassion for your fellow human beings. Heaven forbid that YOU are ever trying to flee a country rampant with crime and corruption only to make a better life for you and your children. These people aren't leaving Mexico for the heck of it...they are leaving because they are living in terrible conditions. These folks leave and don't see their families for years, only to be able to make life better for the next generation. Do you have any idea how long it takes to become a legal resident of the US? You have no idea what you are talking about...you're just hateful. Karma's a b*tch and I can only hope it b*tch slaps you right back into your own nonsense.

    April 29, 2010 at 3:15 am | Report abuse |
  3. EdBnv

    Anyone working in your state IS paying taxes unless their employer is breaking the law! And if they are using somebody elses social then it is more money for the state.

    These ignorant comments ore breathtaking - what, you think that illegals come there and work or live without buying gas, groceries, a big mac??

    you all have been in the sun too much and suffer brain damage to make these outrageous statements.

    The FACT is that most illegals pay just as much taxes as anyone else except they will never be able to get social security or medicade or tax refunds.

    There are certainly problems with welfare fraud and medicare fraud but since those funds are federally matched and the actual incursion in small (in percentage) the impact is minimal , also, a responsible Investigations and Recovery unit in the state should minimize these losses.

    Real issues are that illegal immigrants work for lower wages driving all wages down and identy theft. These are managable problems if we focus on those instead of the marketing (and fear) hype of Rush and friends.

    April 29, 2010 at 3:18 am | Report abuse |
  4. smc, central PA

    Figures Tea Partiers are too dumb to even understand the Constitution. And just wait till they need to pay more taxes to enforce this! Not only that, but the retiree in this article is one of those Tea Partiers who's probably sucking off of their "socialist" Social Security and Medicare. Will these hypocrites just shut up already?

    April 29, 2010 at 3:21 am | Report abuse |
  5. EdBnv

    oh and
    "I was hungry and you did not feed Me, I was naked and you did not clothe Me, I was sick and you did not heal Me," That which you do unto the least of these you do unto Me"

    And you all call yourself Christians, what a fricken JOKE! You couldn't find the Book of Matthew if your mothers life depended on it.

    April 29, 2010 at 3:26 am | Report abuse |
  6. Paul

    Thank you to Bill & Bruce for being voices of reason. To most everyone else, spelling & grammar can go far in lending credibility to your argument. I too am an attorney and although I did not attend Yale, I certainly did not attend the correspondence "law" school that admitted Tammy. One thing that has yet to be mentioned (by name at least), is the sole reason this law will eventually be invalidated, the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Any Federal Court will employ this Clause & will avoid a 14th Amendment Equal Protection argument because it can be too messy and contentious. Simply put, this clause makes clear that the US Constitution, federal laws and treaties are the supreme law of the land, period.

    There are a few things in the Constitution that are expressly reserved for the federal government. A few are: the mail, interstate commerce, treaties with foreign nations, and raisng and maintaining armed forces. These are but a few, but there can be NO state laws that either contravene, regulate, or allow state or local governments to assume enforcement duties that are STRICTLY and SOLELY under the jurisdiction of the federal government. That includes this law and it is not even close. Prop 187 from CA in the 90's was not nearly as broad as this and was struck down by a federal court. If Nebraska passed a law establishig the Nebraska postal system, guess what..........not valid. If Montana signs a treaty with Canada, guess what..............not valid. And if Florida passes a law wherein they decide to print their own currency, drum roll please.......not valid.

    People, it really is that simple, I do not even see this getting to an appeal and AZ, even if it did, it goes to the 9th Circuit in San Francisco, good luck with that. So all of the xenophobes in AZ can rant and rave all day, the law will never be implemented, it will be put on hold until the court ultimately invalidates it.

    Really people, do a little research before you post, especially you Moose, state ID cards or DL's are not proof of citizenship. Even if you have passports, doubtful you carry them daily. Finally, cops, as much as I respect the job they do, are just like lawyers or teachers or any profession, there are good ones and bad ones. Unfortunately, bad cops are all too often violent and/ or closet racists and the costs of their bad decisions, unlike other professions, are individual liberty and/or life. Such a law as this simply allows them unfettered opportunities to target classes of people that they may not like. Cheers.

    April 29, 2010 at 3:31 am | Report abuse |
  7. tij

    If CORRUPT police or being HARASSED by police will be a problem under this law, I suggest that the citizens carry a cell phone with video and audio recording capability. The minute the cop orders you to stop your car or the minute you see the police approaching you, turn on the audio recorder in your cell phone. Or permanently install a video/audio recorder in your car, so when the cops stop you, turn it on so you can record everything. I think by law, you need to tell the person that the encounter is being recorded and the honest cop should not have a problem with that if they are doing everything right.

    April 29, 2010 at 3:32 am | Report abuse |
  8. gorgegirl

    A poll in Arizona said that 70% of Arizona voters were for this legislation.. After reading the comments on different internet sites, I would challenge that poll – I think it is much higher.
    Those who continue to think that "reasonable suspicion" means they can stop you at any time – it isnt true. It just means the police officer who stops an illegal immigrant for another traffic infraction or other violation of the law, can take that extra step to turn the illegal over to ICE when the illegal failed to show a drivers license or proof of being in the US legally instead of just writing up a ticket for no driver's license or insurance.

    Under the 1982 Plyler v Doe Supreme Court ruling, illegal alien students are entitled to enroll in our public schools at taxpayer expense.
    This ruling was issued for two reasons: 1) the ruling was issued in 1982 when the 1986 Amnesty program was already being discussed, and it was felt that these students would be amnestied anyway. And 2), these students were small enough in number that they posed no threat to the education of US students and they were not a financial hardship on US taxpayers.

    However, written into the decision is the following: "Congress can reverse the decision if these illegal alien students prove to be a financial hardship to taxpayers and if the students who are legally residing in the United States begin to have their own education negatively impacted by the presence of illegal alien students."

    Both of these conditions apply today and it is time to reconsider this decision. This is the actual statements of the justices:
    "If the Federal Government, properly chargeable with deporting illegal aliens, fails to do so, it should bear the burdens of their presence here. Surely if illegal alien children can be identified for purposes of this litigation, their parents can be identified for
    purposes of prompt deportation."

    "Congess, "vested by the Constitution with the responsibility of protecting our borders and legislating with respect to aliens," ....bears
    primary responsibility for addressing the problems occasioned by the millions of illegal aliens flooding across our southern border.
    Similarly, it is for Congress, and not this Court, to....assess the "social costs borne by our Nation when select groups are denied the
    means to absorb the values and skills upon which our social order rests."

    April 29, 2010 at 3:35 am | Report abuse |
  9. Mario

    As I say. When I have been accosted and detained by the police for the thousandth time. I will dutifully comply with the request for my ID and the painful wait while it is checked out. I will not say a single word to the officer and other than handing him my ID, I will look right thorugh him and pretend he does not even exist. I will ignore and disregard any questions or statements he may make. I will refuse to even acknowledge his presence before me. All this is doing is utilizing my inherent right to remain silent. Basically I will shut the officer completely out of my mind while with him. When he finds that I am indeed an American (5th generation) citizen and have no warrants or prior arrests, I will take my ID back in silence and turn my back on him and walk away. I will not ask for his "permission" as it is not legally required. If he is somehow offended by my complete silence, that is his problem.

    April 29, 2010 at 3:39 am | Report abuse |
  10. AZ nurse

    You really think sales tax will cover the expense of ER visits, education, and public services. Education alone is $5,000+ per child. And these are not small families. They are mostly Catholic and you all know how big Catholic families can be. So if you have a small illegal family with three kids – that's $15,000 dollars just for school. That is alot of Big Mac tax. Not only that, if they are here and their family is still in Mexico, they wire a portion of their income there to help support them. Although noble, how does it help our economy if our money is crossing the border to stimulate Mexico's economy. I know their circumstance is dire, but if they would rally the troops and do something about it as opposed to wasting their money/energy trying to cross the border illegally, maybe Mexico wouldn't be quite so bad. All the legal dollars to defend this law is because of so many unempathetic liberals trying to inject their ideals and not their dollars into helping our economy that is extremely taxed by the situation. They spend their money to sue our laws as opposed to spending their money to enforce our borders. Do you want all of Mexico here? Can our fragile economy handle such a large influx? We just passed legislation giving 30 million Americans healthcare coverage. Lets go ahead and let all of Mexico have free healthcare as well. Why? Because they aren't as fortunate as we are in this country. There are only so many resources to go around. Limited resources force tough decisions. We just made one. So goo ahead! Boycott Arizona! That will fix the immigration issue real fast. Next time California passes a gay marriage ban we can all boycott them. And when Florida pulls the tube on a patient we can boycott them, and when Utah cuts back on alcohol permits we can boycott them. Pretty soon we will all be stuck in our own states, unable to travel anywhere because we let ourselves get riled up about everyone else's business we know nothing about. You are all offended and it is your own fault because you choose to be offended by the way we have chosen to deal with a crisis situation. You back a dog into a corner and it WILL bite you. We have been in a corner for a long time waiting for the federal government to help and we are not going to wait anymore.

    April 29, 2010 at 3:41 am | Report abuse |
  11. tij

    Paul, the attorney. You said "Really people, do a little research before you post, especially you Moose, state ID cards or DL's are not proof of citizenship."

    Please read the SB1070 one more time. You are misunderstanding the law.

    The POLICE is NOT looking for proof of citizenship. Read the law again.

    April 29, 2010 at 3:46 am | Report abuse |
  12. Gerard T.

    Immigrants have been the back bone of this country since before Arizona was even a state. Immigrants then had unalienable rights, that granted them the right to pursue happiness. This is the same story now with immigrant Mexicans. They shouldn't be picked on, they and there families deserve better then what this law gives them. But I also understand that we do have a issue here, but this is a problem we bring to the border not to my backyard. And as one more point to this argument, Mexico is ridiculously dangerous right now, it a legitimate war zone, crooked cops and dangerous drug cartels that Americans fund! Some of these people are fleeing a dangerous land in search of safety.

    That's my support for immigrants, now hear my stand point, my footing, I am a Mexican American. We don't deserve to be profiled, looked upon by the community and law enforcement as being a criminal. Nothing but a stack of papers. There is no possible way to to weed out Mexican's without looking at race and culture. How do you identify a immigrant? That answer has yet to be written, and when it is it better be one hell of a document, flawless.

    And now here is my stand point as an American. Does everyone really want to live in a society where everyone has to be identifiable by the police on demand? Are *ucking kidding me?! Police state anyone? Nazi Germany?! And yeah, lets put anyone we don't like in prison (concentration), and charge them fines that we know they can't pay.

    This is only a ripple, a cosmic spec of what this law can really is, This is history repeating itself, your going to get people that are going to want to hide these people and protect them, underground rail road, non Jews hiding Jews, even despite the law. If you can get people to do this again you have something bigger then just a law.

    Sometimes I think to myself that these illegal immigrants are more American then people the inhabit this state.

    April 29, 2010 at 3:47 am | Report abuse |
  13. gorgegirl

    Paul says he doesn't think this law will ever be implemented. Well, I don't know if Paul is a scholar of the law or not, but I do know that Jonathan Turley is. And, Jonathan Turley thinks this law might not be so easy turned over.

    He said: An early challenge by the Justice Department would indicate that it is not going to wait to create an “as applied” challenge based on actual enforcement. That would make it more likely that the challenge would be based on preemption. That would be a tough challenge in my view.

    He further stated: "The law is being characterized as a separate or alternative state enforcement system as opposed to a concurrent enforcement scheme. That is far from obvious from the language which was written to track the federal law. Unless preempted, the assumption is that the state can exercise concurrent jurisdiction. As the Court stated in lyer v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 228 (1982),

    “Although the State has no direct interest in controlling entry into this country, that interest being one reserved by the Constitution to the Federal Government, unchecked unlawful migration might impair the State’s economy generally, or the State’s ability to provide some important service. Despite the exclusive federal control of this Nation’s borders, we cannot conclude that the States are without power to deter the influx of persons entering the United States against federal law, and whose numbers might have a discernible impact on traditional state concerns.”

    This is why I have been more interested in the reasonable suspicion provision. On its face, it is hard to see how that standard could be applied constitutionally except when officers determine status at the time of another criminal violation. The problem is that the strongest challenge to that provision would be based on actual enforcement — which various groups clearly do not want to wait for. Courts may view an effort to challenge the likely application of the reasonable suspicion provision as a demand for an “advisory opinion” — which courts do not render given the requirement of an actual “case or controversy” under Article III. "

    April 29, 2010 at 3:49 am | Report abuse |
  14. tij

    TURN ON YOUR CELL PHONE AUDIO RECORDERS when approached by a cop – make sure you tell the cop that the encounter is being recorded.

    Reasonable suspicion should never be determined by looks, race or ethnicity.

    1. A man rapes a woman. The police asks the man for ID to process the crime and the man presents a FAKE ID. That is reasonable suspicion that the person may be an illegal alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S.

    2. A woman is stopped for traffic violation. The police asks the woman for the driver's license and the woman presents a fake-looking driver's license that police know is a counterfeit. That is reasonable suspicion that the person may be an illegal alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S.

    3. The state audits an employer and discovers copies of fake SSN cards for its employees. That is reasonable suspicion that the employees involved may be illegal aliens who are unlawfully present in the U.S.

    4. Just like how police plays undercover to crack drug dealings, a undercover police dressed up and acting like a day laborer hangs out with the day laborers in front of Home Depot pretending to get jobs with the rest of the laborers there. The undercover police and others get paid under the table for their work while there are discussions among them where they are from and how they got to the USA illegally and obtained fake documents. That is reasonable suspicion that the persons involved in disclosing incriminating information about themselves may be aliens who are unlawfully present in the U.S.

    No racial profiling should occur in SB1070. If you are brown and is paranoid that the police will harass you, invest in a cell phone with audio recorder capability. Install a video/audio recorder in your car.

    April 29, 2010 at 4:02 am | Report abuse |
  15. AZ nurse

    Gerard – you are good at taking a law to enforce immigration and turning it to compare with the worst crisis in modern history. Your assumption would require a fascist dictator – I don't like him but Obama is not quite there yet. We are only a small piece of the American puzzle. This law is not going to land innocent people in concentration camps. If you are here legally then you stay. If you are not then we send you HOME. Just because you came here illegally doesn't make this your home. As far as racial profiling, I am fine with being questioned five times a day if that is what it takes to fix this problem. Will I, probably not because I don't look illegal. But will you, assuming you are Hispanic? Not even. How many police officers do you think will be roaming the streets just to look for illegals. With our current budget crisis they are already talking about cutting back the police force further. I would be surprised if you were asked monthly, if not annually. If that is just too much for you to bear than I am sorry. I think the real reason is because you might have friends who are here illegally and you know they will eventually be asked, and when they are they will be sent back. This will be very difficult for them. And you don't want that to happen. But did they come here the right way? If not, why are you defending them? Because their country has problems we can't imagine. Well God put them there for a reason. I don't believe it was to break our laws. Maybe they should stay to find out.
    As far as the EdBnv quoting Matthew. I am a Christian. I go to church every Sunday, even if I work Saturday and Sunday night, I still go to church. I would give any one of you the shirt off my back, including an illegal, if they needed it. Wanting the AZ border enforced and to deport those who are breaking our laws and taxing our system does not make me any less Christian. There are well over a billion people on this earth that don't enjoy 1/10 the standard of living of anyone of us. Do we bring them all here and share our resources with them? So where do YOU draw the line EdBnv with being a Christian? When do you stop feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, etc. So long as you have a full plate of food on your table and someone else is starving then you are not being Christian if I understand your interpretation correctly. So don't you dare judge us for enforcing the law the way we feel we need to. If it is wrong in God's eyes then we will stand accountable. But I know it is not wrong – that is why it is called "illegal."

    April 29, 2010 at 4:04 am | Report abuse |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84