Marti Oakley      Copyright 2012 All Rights Reserved

____________________________________________________________________

Arizona bill HB 1070, a bill confirming the right of the state of Arizona to deal directly with illegal immigration, was immediately challenged by the DoJ.  The state was sued by the so-called [Justice Department] for infringing on what the DoJ claimed was a right reserved to the federal government, only.  In July of 2010, the DoJ filed suit against Arizona in an effort to strike down the law, effectively leaving the state defenseless against the onslaught of uncontrolled illegal immigration from Mexico coming into the state.

The murder of US citizens, kidnappings and terrorizing of communities along the Arizona/Mexico border, in fact across the entire border, while border patrol agents continue to be prosecuted for doing their jobs has exacerbated the already high tensions in these communities.

The one thing the DoJ and Attorney General Holder seem to have overlooked, is their own responsibility in this matter; but they need not worry.  The former US Code & Title 8, used to read that the AG and subsequently the Secretary of Homeland Security were charged with defending our borders, especially in the event of a mass influx of illegal immigrants.  This was the US Code until recently:

Title 8 Chapter 12: Subchapter 1103   1103. Powers and duties of the Secretary, the Under Secretary, and the Attorney General    

5) He shall have the power and duty to control and guard the boundaries and borders of the United States against the illegal entry of aliens and shall, in his discretion, appoint for that purpose such number of employees of the Service as to him shall appear necessary and proper.  

(10) In the event the Attorney General determines that an actual or imminent mass influx of aliens arriving off the coast of the United States, or near a land border, presents urgent circumstances requiring an immediate Federal response, the Attorney General may authorize any State or local law enforcement officer, with the consent of the head of the department, agency, or establishment under whose jurisdiction the individual is serving, to perform or exercise any of the powers, privileges, or duties conferred or imposed by this chapter or regulations issued there under upon officers or employees of the Service.

8 USC § 1103 – Powers and duties of the Secretary, the Under Secretary, and the Attorney General now reads like this:

As with other online versions of the Code, the U.S. Code Classification Tables should be consulted for the latest laws affecting the Code.

This previous section has been deleted or omitted.  If it reappears, it will be in another section if at all.  The point is that it was the office of Attorney General and HSD who were charged with defending and securing that border and they, and their predecessors, whether Democrat or Republican have steadfastly refused to do so.  Section 1103 of US Code & Title is apparently being remodeled to more suit the current political goals of the federal government.

The idea that US citizens are being terrorized, kidnapped and murdered by drug cartels, while hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants flood the border, many of whom end up in Arizona and yet no effective action is taken to defend that border or the citizens which reside in close proximity to it, the problem is not a broken immigration system.  The problem is the governments failure to act appropriately.

US Code & Title, is contract law created by the federal government over decades and these codes supposedly empower non-elected bureaucracies to perform certain functions.

When a contract creates a duty that does not exist at common law, there are three things the parties can do wrong:

Nonfeasance is to ignore and take no indicated action – neglect.

Misfeasance is to take inappropriate action or give intentionally incorrect advice.

Malfeasance is hostile, aggressive action taken to injure the client’s interests.

Example: A government creates and funds an office, the head of said office has duties that include protecting the borders especially in the event of mass illegal immigration.  The head of that office does not take the appropriate actions to defend the border as prescribed in US Code & Title.

If the head of the office doesn’t show up, or sends little to no help……. it’s considered nonfeasance.

If the help shows up but is ordered not to actually help defend the border (and is not allowed to use the weaponry that was paid for), and then advises the border patrol they can take no action against the intruders,  it’s considered misfeasance.

If the office and its head agent acts to empower the known enemies of the people, and begins using other government agencies to deliver guns and ammunition to these enemies, it’s considered malfeasance.  Or more likely, aiding and abetting with the intent to commit great bodily harm.

Personally, after the outing of Fast & Furious,  I see no reason why Eric Holder and whomever else from the DoJ were involved, along with the ATF agents who actually did the gun running, should not all be put immediately on active domestic terrorists lists.  Fast & Furious was a terrorist activity that put security of America in danger.

Things are not so great on the border

Arizona, along with many other states begged the federal government to intervene.  The federal government response was to repeatedly attempt to pass blanket amnesty and the Dream Act and to fund LaRaza and other pro-immigration organizations with taxpayer money hidden in various jobs bills, education funding and other cash intensive federal programs.  In addition, Obama issued an executive order affectively halting deportation of 300,000 illegal immigrants.

After sitting on the DoJ lawsuit against Arizona for two years, SCOTUS has agreed to hear the case beginning April 23, 2012.  Virtually two years later and apparently in an effort to allow radical changes in the US Code & Title 8 which will most likely relieve the AG and HSD secretary from any liability, responsibility or culpability in the volatile border situation, SCOTUS is ready to hear the arguments.

Someone please explain why  SCOTUS would hear a case brought by this attorney general who was up to his eyeballs in the gunrunning racket called “fast & furious” where the federal government was supplying known drug cartels and many other criminals with the guns and ammunition to use against American citizens and agents?

Arizona should have responded by siting the US Code and charging the DoJ and HSD with dereliction of duty and failure to perform their assigned duties.  I would also have considered charging them with aiding and abetting illegal immigration, drug smuggling, and violence against the citizens of Arizona especially when Fast & Furious was exposed, and to include attempted pre-meditated murder.

Napolitano: Is this woman crazy?

On January 30, 2012, Janet Napolitano, Homeland Security Secretary claimed that the Obama Administration was taking the [most serious] and [sustained actions] to secure the border with Mexico in the history of the US.

The Obama administration has undertaken the most serious and sustained actions to secure our borders in our nation’s history. And it is clear from every measure we currently have that this approach is working,” she said in her second annualState of America’s Homeland Securityaddress Monday at the National Press Club.    Napolitano made these remarks after Obama announced that the number of National Guard personnel will be reduced along the border; this while the violence escalates.  

These efforts to delude the public about the conditions on the border with Mexico came even as the National Drug Threat Assessment was issued:   According to the Justice Department’s “National Drug Threat Assessment” for 2011, Mexican drug cartels remain a major threat to America’s security.   

The report says the National Drug Intelligence Center assesses with “high confidence” that Mexican-based cartels “control distribution of most of the heroin, marijuana, and methamphetamine available in the United States,” and production of these drugs in Mexico “appears to be increasing.”

Does it make you wonder if Napolitano actually believes what she is saying?  Is she really this clueless?  At what point did this woman come to believe that the current approach of prosecuting border patrol agents, rising crime rates, murders, shoot-outs, targeted killings, and an all out war on the southern border, is working?  Could it be that the idea that it is getting worse by the day may be what she is referring to?  Maybe their approach is working…just not the way and for the reasons we thought.

Arizona, just like any other state has the right of self protection and most especially self defense.  The federal government and its agents have refused and have willfully ignored their responsibilities and in fact have engaged in activities which represent a clear and present danger to Arizona and its citizens.  The DoJ actively participated in providing weapons to known enemies of the US…….I don’t know how much more terroristic this could get.

This lawsuit against Arizona represents a preliminary battle between state’s rights, and the ever expanding federal government.  Personally, I believe Arizona’s response to the DoJ and to SCOTUS should have been:

Based on your previous and ongoing activities; you have no standing in this state and no right to bring suit. Get out!

____________________________________________________________________

Arizona bill HB 1070 http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

DoJ sues Arizona over HB1070                                                            http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/July/10-opa-776.html

https://ppjg.me/2010/05/05/usc-title-8-who-is-charged-with-defending-our-borders/

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/12/12/387434/supreme-court-will-hear-sb1070-case-justice-kagan-is-recused/?mobile=nc

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/08/18/immigration-update-maximizing-public-safety-and-better-focusing-resources

National Drug Intelligence Center                                                                                     http://www.justice.gov/ndic/

National Drug Threat Assessment                                        http://www.justice.gov/ndic/pubs44/44849/44849p.pdf

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/July/10-opa-776.html

UNITED STATES CODE TABLE OF SECTIONS AMENDED, ENACTED, OMITTED, REPEALED, OR TRANSFERRED ◦”nt” means note. ◦”new” means a new section or new note.