http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/71977



(CNSNews.com) – Sheriff Larry Dever, whose officers patrol Cochise County along the border between Arizona and Mexico, said he finds it “amazing” that the U.S. State Department would refer the recently passed immigration law in his state to the United Nations Human Rights Council for review.

“Well, it’s just amazing to me,” Dever told CNSNews.com. “Course, I have about as much regard for the U.N. as I do the vermin that hides in the rocks around my house here and reaches out and tries to bite me every now and then.”

The Bush administration refused to join the U.N. Human Rights Council, citing lax membership criteria that allowed countries with poor human rights records to sit on the council, including countries such as China, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Russia, Cuba, Pakistan, Tunisia and Egypt.



The Obama administration joined the council, citing its imperfections but made claims that U.S. efforts could change the organization for the better.

Now, the U.S. State Department is asking the council to review possible human rights violations that supposedly could occur under the Arizona’s new law against illegal immigration. The U.S. Justice Department (DOJ) has also filed a lawsuit challenging the Arizona law.

“Where does this end?” Dever told CNSNews.com.

“Why the Department of Justice intervened in this case to begin with was beyond comprehension,” Dever said, referring to the DOJ lawsuit, which claims that the Arizona law violated the federal government’s exclusive right to enforce federal immigration laws.




U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton addresses the United Nations General Assembly on Thursday, Aug. 19, 2010, in New York. (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer)Dever said the State Department move, however, is in keeping with the Obama administration’s reluctance to enforce federal immigration law and that it is probably seeking support from the United Nations to further its agenda.

“It’s indicative of the personality of the entire administration and what they are trying to get done,” Dever said. “This is just further evidence.”

Dever added that the results of the U.N. review would not have any impact for those with boots on the ground in Arizona who, on a daily basis, fight the flow of illegal immigrants across the porous U.S. border.

“They can take their declarations and their findings and pack them all up and keep them in the United Nations because we really don’t care what they think,” Dever said.

In its report to the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, the State Department, headed by Secretary Hillary Clinton, said the following: “A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world. The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. This action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined.”

because barry is an idiot, and wants to ruin our country...

worrying about human rights??


THAT DAMN OBAMA,,,!!!!!!

The issue isn't worrying about human rights. Why would anyone think it is ok for the UN to have any say over our laws? Where is that in the Constitution or Bill of Rights? Or are we no longer a country?

Also, whose human rights are being violated? There is a way to immigrate to this country legally.

the UN dosn't need to get involved with our politics, we have doing fine without intervention....

who said their opinion would be having a say,, who said people cant seek outside opinions?

it's a border situation... obama is scared to make a desision on his own? he is a coward...

depends upon whom you ask,, the feds could give the same argument about the intrusion of the state(although illegal immigration numbers are actually DOWN)

at least the UN is being asked instead of just taking it upon themself

depends upon whom you ask,, the feds could give the same argument about the intrusion of the state(although illegal immigration numbers are actually DOWN)

at least the UN is being asked instead of just taking it upon themself

obama is a coward... when did ANY other president ask the UN's permission for internal matters?

Why would we need or want the opinion of the UN concerning the laws of our country?

again, I dont see it as asking PERMISSION to inquire review by an outside source


perhaps we should get second and third opinions more often

I don't see the reasoning. Why would we need or want an outside opinion concerning our laws? We have a sovereign government with checks and balances, excluding executive orders of course, but that is another topic. There is no reason for US to ever seek the opinion of the UN, unless....

To seek an outside "opinion", is to admit that our form of govt. does not work.

Never have we ever asked of any other opinions from another country, much less the worthless UN!!

But Oblowme is not merely seeking an opinion from the UN, he's seeking a judgement from them against AZ. And the fact that he's (illegally) the head of the UN, all he has to do is get one of his UN buddies to review or accept the case, and its a done deal for him.

He's using racism against Americans as his basis for the case.

The Secretary-General of the United Nations is the head of the Secretariat, one of the principal organs of the United Nations. The Secretary-General also acts as the de facto spokesperson and leader of the United Nations.

The current Secretary-General is Ban Ki-moon of South Korea, who took office on 1 January 2007. His first term will expire on the 31st of December 2011, and he will be eligible for reappointment.

to ask for opinions is CONSIDERING there may be OTHER ways to do something , its not an admission that something doesnt work,,

So seeking an opinion:

"U.S. State Department would refer the recently passed immigration law in his state to the United Nations Human Rights Council for review."


on a law which is controversial

“A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world.


To avoid being cited alongside the following by the world community

"countries such as China, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Russia, Cuba, Pakistan, Tunisia and Egypt."


Is a bad thing?


Want it or not, admit it or not. The U.S. is part of the international community. It is also a nation which for decades has touted Democracy and Freedom around the world. Now the world sees a law which is certainly controversial when outsiders view it and compare it to the message the U.S. has spread for decades. Where a review will not affect a single thing in the U.S. it would show the international community that the U.S. is not acting counter to the message of freedom it so proudly throws about.





Unless of course .... said law actually is against The Universal Declaration of Human Rights





Article 2.

* Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.


Article 6.

* Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.


Article 7.

* All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.


Article 9.

* No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.


Article 10.

* Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.



Article 12.

* No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.




Article 30.

* Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.



Full Text: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

First, those countries were mentioned in the context of the article for the reasoning of the US in not previously joining the council because of a poor human rights record.
Second, the laws of this country provide for legal ways of becoming a citizen. To immigrate or stay here without following those laws is illegal, hence the term illegal immigrant. I fail to see how it is a violation of anyone's civil rights by protecting our borders and economy by requiring them to adhere to our immigration laws. I also fail to see how the UN has any jurisdiction over our laws. It is an encroachment on the sovereignty of our country.
Third, in reading the full text of the un declaration, I find it interesting that most of it is not adhered to by many of the member nations, but we are asking them for advice?
Lastly, if you like the idea of the UN imposing or offering opinion on the laws of this country, that is a much bigger problem than could ever be addressed here.

And a good reason to NOT want the US mixed in that company. Hence asking for an outside opinion. You will note that I did clearly state..."To avoid being cited alongside the following by the world community "



* Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

From arguments I have seen against this law there is fear of ethnic discrimination and profiling and this is what seems to have made the law so controversial.



You ever find a perfect government ... let me know. I'll move.



I didn't say I liked or disliked....I stated that maybe it was a way to NOT have the international community look at the US as a human rights violator. As for the imposing, it's an opinion being asked for NOT a UN Resolution, Condemnation or imposition of International Sanctions.

I don't think asking those who do not recognize civil rights in their countries to make a ruling on the civil rights issues or input on civil rights in the US comparing it to legalNillegal immigration which these people will probably understand better would probably rule in AZ favor unless of course they arebtrying to institute a world government......I don't think we should be a member of NATO at all