Talk:Russell Pearce

Open Borders Election

Russell Pearce has been fighting the Open Borders Policies implemented across the United States, something he clearly acknowledges. The November 7th 2011 recall election was clearly fought on immigration issues, with one candidate supporting the Open Borders position widely supported across the United States and the other fighting this Open Borders Policy. The candidate that won was the one supporting the Open Border Policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.186.68 (talk) 07:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The claim of that the United States has an Open Borders policy clearly passes the Duck test. 124.169.241.58 (talk) 11:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Immigration had little to do with the recall. John Paul Parks (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

References

Education Controversy

Due to the single issue nature of the controversy and that it has not been sourced for a long period of time, it seems prudent that given the conservatism reflected in rules on biographies of living persons that it should be removed. Perhaps these objections can be rewritten but I would recommend a rewrite that focuses on Pearce's controversial stances on multiple issues. Panchitaville^talk 04:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the only bit of uncited criticism in the controversy section; I will go ahead and remove the banner, but if you disagree, feel free to replace it. --TeaDrinker (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Disagree with the Dispute on this Article

This article has been disputed for its neutrality. I disagree. I find the article to be reasonable, fair and balanced.

Although I personally find Pearce's views inappropriate, offensive, narrow-minded and completely out of the mainstream, the article does not appear to me to take sides.

I share a good deal of political, philosophical, ecclesiastical and historical background with Pearce (and do not live in his voting district or even nearby), but the article is accurate and fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmnewlin (talk • contribs) 18:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the disagreement. The introductory paragraph smells of Pearce cheering. " . . highly regarded for his work on the behalf of taxpayers and liberty." 'Liberty' is an abstraction. This isn't an objective observation, it's familiar and partisan. The language used to list his favorite issues also smacks of hyperbole. Would another politician favor "weak border security"? "Tax oppression"? Sounds like Pearce's own campaigning. The introduction could use an objective re-write. thump toma 21:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Mountain Meadows Massacre

Is the section describing his ancestor's role in the Mountain Meadows Massacre really necessary? It seems like a triviality that few people would be coming to the article to find. Thoughts? --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. And now the anon has added some other stuff that makes the article argue with itself. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Family history is pertinent, especially when history seems to be repeating itself. Hatred towards immigrants seems to run deep in Pearce's blood - the truth needs to be told.Seekveritas (talk) 02:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

in "blood"? nawwww... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

This sort of deep family history would be in the class of trivia, I would think. I don't see independent, reliable reports of a dynasty of xenophobia here. As trivia it is superfluous and as an indictment or impeachment of Pearce's character it is original research. I see no teal justification to include that bit of his family history. --TeaDrinker (talk) 02:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Russell Pearce, and his older brother, Lester, who is running for County Supervisor in Maricopa County, are quick to take advantage of the misfortunes of family members when they think it is to their political advantage. For example, their campaign literature will tell you about a nephew who is a double amputee on account of his service in Iraq, and about the son who was serving a warrant on an illegal alien, as if any of that has anything to do with why Russell or Lester should serve in public office.John Paul Parks (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Paragraph Structure: Immigration Policies

The following text, located under the heading "Immigration Policies" needs to be revised to reflect time order:

• "Pearce has fought for restricting illegal immigration into the United States. He drafted Proposition 200, popularly known as Protect Arizona Now, intended to stop voting fraud and welfare fraud by illegal aliens. In a recent story on NPR, he was quoted as saying, "I believe in the rule of law … I've always believed in the rule of law. We're a nation of laws."; and "I will not back off until we solve the problem of this illegal invasion. Invaders, that's what they are. Invaders on the American sovereignty and it can't be tolerated."[3] In reaction to the federal government's seeking of a conjunction injunction on the law on constitutional grounds: "It's outrageous and it's clear they don't want (immigration) laws enforced. What they want is to continue their non-enforcement policy," Pearce said. "They ignore the damage to America, the cost to our citizens, the deaths" tied to border-related violence.[4] Pearce was a lead sponsor of Arizona SB1070, which passed into law in April 2010 as the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act.[5] The measure attracted national attention as the broadest and strictest anti-illegal immigration measure in decades within the United States.[6]"

Pearce's recent commentary on NPR occurred in response to S.B. 1070, not Proposition 200, and the information regarding 1070 should precede it. Additionally, there is no such thing as a "conjunction injunction" in U.S. law. Perhaps this has been confused with an entertaining grammar tool that used to air on television in the United States during Saturday morning cartoons and children's programming in the 1970s called conjunction junction. Without regard to the content, and barring any disagreements regarding grammar and paragraph structure, I would like to edit this. Thank you.

Right. I moved the NPR-paragraph a notch down so that it follows the line about SB1070; that should make it clearer. I have no opinion on the "conjunction injunction"-thing. Maybe others can say more about that. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposition 200: Clarification Needed

Under the heading "Immigration Policies" The text states:

"He drafted Proposition 200, popularly known as Protect Arizona Now, intended to stop voting fraud and welfare fraud by illegal aliens."

There are many sources indicating that Proposition 200 was drafted by numerous individials associated with FAIR and PAN, not just Pearce. Pearce later disassociated himself with PAN, after it was revealed that the organization was led by a white supremacist.

See: http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/article_5b0fc2a6-8b9d-5291-a4db-4d1f403cbc5a.html)

Regardless, while it is clear that he supported 200, and was a member of PAN, to state "He drafted..." should be clarified, as this infers that Pearce wrote the legislation himself.

Furthermore, Proposition 200 was not called "Protect Arizona Now." The proposition is officially called the "Arizona Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act."

(For the complete text of the proposition see: http://www.azsos.gov/election/2004/Info/PubPamphlet/Sun_Sounds/english/prop200.htm)

"Protect Arizona Now" was not the name of the ballot proposition, but rather it was the name of the organization supporting it, which later fell apart due to its ties with white supremacists. Several easily located sources, including the East Valley Tribune article make this clear. While many proponents referred to the proposition as the "Protect Arizona Now" initiative, the term is incorrect.

Lastly, in Russell Pearce's own words, the intent of Proposition 200 was to "...protect[s] the integrity of our election and welfare systems."

(Please see the heading "ARGUMENTS "FOR" PROPOSITION 200" in the aforementioned text of the proposition at azsos.gov where the argument written by Russell Pearce is located.)

The text of the sentence in question infers that election fraud is a problem in Arizona, which has not been proven, as neither the U.S. nor Arizona have ever prosectuted a single Arizona immigrant for election fraud. This fact has been documented by writer Greg Palast who covered this issue for Rolling Stone. Palast followed U.S. Attorney, David Iglesias, as he attempted attempted to determine whether immigrant election fraud was actually taking place in Arizona, after former Secretary of State, now Governor, Jan Brewer removed over 100,000 suspected registered immigrant voters from the rolls. There are many sources for this story, but perhaps Palast's own description of his experience writing the story for Rolling Stone is the most vivid.

(http://www.gregpalast.com/behind-the-arizona-immigration-lawgop-game-to-swipe-the-november-election/)

However, I cite this story only as a reference for anyone wishing to verify the sources Palast cites, as the link provided here links to a blog or unpublished source, and as a result the primary source should be cited in the Pearce article, not the Palast article.

It is my opinion that the text of this sentence should be edited to say:

"In 2004, Russell Pearce supported Arizona's Proposition 200, the Arizona Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act, which voters approved to protect the integrity of the state's election and welfare systems."

I would like to tag the text in question, and if no one addresses the issue, I would like to make these changes. Thank you. Monoxide 11:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monoxide (talk • contribs)

I marked the text in question with a clarification tag. Since have been no objections, I have made the change. Monoxide 08:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monoxide (talk • contribs)

1070 section

Monoxide wrote a (very good, in my view) section on SB1070 which was removed for lack of refs. I have taken the liberty of digging some up and making a few changes (discussed below).

As lead sponsor of SB1070, Pearce received assistance from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) in drafting the text for the legislation. In December 2007, FAIR was identified as a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). FAIR has received funding from the Pioneer Group, which the press has identified as a neo-Nazi organization.

I switched the intro to refer to Pearce as lead sponsor rather than "my bill" since the latter (though demonstrable) does not describe his role as drafter of the legislation. There's certainly no BLP issues here (or I would not have re-posted it), since the subjective description as a hate group is attributed and sourced. There are two notability issues which are worth mentioning, first is the relatively tangential connection to FAIR, and second is the notability of the SPLC in the description as a hate group. I think the connection to FAIR is warranted, since SB1070 is what elevated Pearce to a national stage (thus its origins should be reasonably discussed). On the notability of the SPLC, they have national recognition as following hate groups, so their characterization of FAIR as such is warranted. The link to the blog is reasonable (when most blogs are not WP:RS) since it is an official mouthpiece of SPLC and the description is repeated elsewhere in their material.

Thoughts, objections, or refutations? --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

References

1980 Divorce Petition

Can anyone come up with a copy of the petition that Mrs. Pearce filed against him in 1980? Under Arizona law, a petition for dissolution of marriage is required to be verified, or sworn to, see A.R.S. s. 25-314, and prudent matrimonial lawyers will require the client to sign such a petition in any event, regardless what the legal requirement may be. If the petition was signed by Mrs. Pearce under oath, that will be relevant to assessing the credibility of her recent statements.John Paul Parks (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

If you go to footnote 46, the article has a link to the divorce petition, and she did sign the statement under oath. John Paul Parks (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Material about his sons

This article currently has a lengthy 'Controversy' section. Most of it is fine and meets our standards, but there are a couple of lines that I don't think belong there. This is the content I'm referring to, about his sons:

"Russell Pearce's son Justin resigned from the Arizona Motor Vehicles Division in 1999, after he produced counterfeit driver's licenses for himself and four friends with false ages, in an effort to avoid alcohol prohibition laws.[34][35] Justin Pearce subsequently pled guilty to tampering with a public record and received a suspended sentence.[35]

In February 2011 Mesa police arrested Russell Pearce's son Joshua Trent Pearce on two outstanding warrants tied to a probation violation and failing to appear in court."

Does this content have anything directly to do with Russell Pearce? Does it reflect badly on him in some way? I don't think so. Unless it's been suggested that he had somehow helped or encouraged his sons to break the law, I can't see how it can be considered a 'Russell Pearce controversy'. If the sons had their own articles, this content should be there instead; as they're not notable, I think it should simply be removed. Robofish (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Pearce was his son Justin's boss at the MVD, so there's the issue of nepotism, and the fact that Pearce was fired, and his son was arrested. Pearce (and, for that matter, his son Sean, who is a Sheriff's Deputy) failed to turn in Joshua, even after it became widely publicized that a warrant for his arrest had been issued. Ultimately, the issue is violations of laws that point back at Russell Pearce. Fearofreprisal (talk) 12:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Fiesta Bowl revelations should be added to Controversy section

Pearce's receiving gifts and junkets from Fiesta Bowl officials and the resulting controversy need to be noted. While he lives in a comfortably Republican district, the revelations played a part in his getting recalled. If he can't win re-election, there's little doubt that people will claim the scandal was a significant contributor to his defeat. It's a significant event in his career. thump toma 22:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thump toma (talk • contribs)

Characterization of service

This characterization of Sen. Pearce's service, "but is also highly regarded for his work on the behalf of taxpayers and liberty." is controversial, not neutral, and needs to be modified to reflect the controversy. I suggest something on the lines of " is noted for his work on tax reduction."

Pearce is notable not for his accomplishments, but for his controversies. He leapt into national prominence because of SB1070, and has become even more notable for being recalled. In Arizona he's notable for being fired from the MVD for falsifying records, for suggesting that Arizona cancel its Medicaid program, for associating with neo-Nazis and hate groups, for closing the state capitol to certain members of the press and public, for failing to declare gifts from the Fiesta Bowl, and for a variety of other controversies. I've changed the lead paragraph to indicate that he is best known for SB1070 and for being recalled. This is simple enough, and is supported by the article body. Fearofreprisal (talk) 12:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Lead section

I had never heard of this guy until a reference to him in an article I was just reading online. What a poorly written lead! Chronology is confusing, priorities are for shit (we start with the district he represents?), yucky yuck. I'll give it one swipe, but no more. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Russell Pearce. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100806205828/http://mesa18.com/candidates/russell_pearce.htm to http://mesa18.com/candidates/russell_pearce.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100710012222/http://www.rr.com:80/news/topic/article/rr/9000/15416321/Feds_sue_to_block_Arizona_illegal_immigrant_law/2 to http://www.rr.com/news/topic/article/rr/9000/15416321/Feds_sue_to_block_Arizona_illegal_immigrant_law/2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)