Conservative Patriots Group

Local opinion of the new Arizona immigration law seems to be quite supportive, yet I hesitate to remind Alaskans that two of our largest cities, and the entire state legislature, are on record via resolutions forbidding the use of city or state agencies and funding for the purpose of enforcement of federal immigration laws.

From http://www.aclu.org/national-security/alaska-state-legislature-resolution is a copy of the state’s resolution unanimously approved by the senate and almost unanimously by the house:

“FURTHER RESOLVED that an agency or instrumentality of the state may not,

(1) use state resources or institutions for the enforcement of federal

immigration matters, which are the responsibility of the federal government…”

From http://www.aclu.org/national-security/fairbanks-ak-city-council-resolution is a copy of the Fairbanks City Council resolution:

“IT IS HEREBY FURTHER RESOLVED, and is the policy of the City of Fairbanks, to forbid in the absence of probable cause of criminal activity…4. enforcement of immigration matters, which are entirely the responsibility of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. No city service will be denied on the basis of citizenship…”

From http://www.aclu.org/national-security/anchorage-ak-resolution is a copy of the Anchorage City Council resolution:

“Section 4: That an agency or instrumentality of the Municipality may not,

(1) Unless necessary to protect the safety of people, use Municipal resources or institutions for the enforcement of Federal immigration matters, which are the responsibility of the Federal government…”

Sitka has one too http://dev.numbersusa.com/content/learn/crime/sanctuary-laws.html#alaska.

DO WE REALLY SUPPORT ARIZONA?

How can anyone take us seriously? I know, that was then and this is now. Things change, and so do people’s opinions. And the resolutions are not legally binding; they just provide guidance for the city and state agencies to conduct their business.

That, my friends, is the definition of a sanctuary city, and a sanctuary state. Here, in conclusion, is an interesting article regarding an attempt to remove the sanctuary label in Anchorage: http://alaskapride.blogspot.com/2007/09/anchorage-assemblyman-paul-bauer.html.

The Anchorage Assembly just passed another "resolution" by unanimous consent and without discussion

"OPPOSING THE 2 AUGUST 24, 2010 ALASKA PRIMARY ELECTION BALLOT INITIATIVE ENTITLED “AN

INITIATIVE CREATING AN ALASKA ANTI-CORRUPTION ACT” BECAUSE IT IS OVERBROAD IN APPLICATION AND NOT HELPFUL TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS."   Apparently, the resolution is in direct conflict with the will of the people.  Nonetheless, it is a blatent attempt to influence the outcome of an election by the elected officials (corruptocrats) who would be the most affected by an ANTI-CORRUPTION LAW, next to those who receive the tax payer dollars and contribute a portion of those dollars to elect and re-elect them.

ric