WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court struck down key provisions of Arizona’s crackdown on immigrants Monday but said a much-debated portion on checking suspects’ status could go forward.
The court did not throw out the state provision requiring police to check the immigration status of someone they suspect is in the United States illegally. Even there, though, the justices said the provision could be subject to additional legal challenges.
The decision upholds the “show me your papers” requirement for the moment. But it takes the teeth out of it by prohibiting police officers from arresting people on minor immigration charges.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Maine and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland issued a joint press release on the ruling.
“The decision will have a limited impact in Maine because the Legislature has already rejected Arizona’s controversial approach,” Shenna Bellows, executive director of the ACLU of Maine Foundation said in the press release. “Racial profiling and ‘show me your papers’ tactics hurt citizens and noncitizens alike and do not reflect fundamental values of fairness and equality.”
A proposal similar to the Arizona law was introduced in 2011 in Maine but withdrawn after a variety of civil rights, business and religious groups expressed concerns about its unintended consequences, according to Bellows.
Marc Mutty, public policy director for the Catholic church in Maine, said the section of Arizona’s law that remains would lead to “family separation and breakdown and infringe upon the church’s ability to minister to the immigrant population.”
“The law’s emphasis on enforcement alone conflicts with the values of family unity and religious freedom,” he said in the press release. “A balance between these competing goals is best achieved by the federal government.”
The court announced that Thursday would be the last day of rulings this term, which means the decision on President Barack Obama’s landmark health care overhaul probably will come that day.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the opinion for the court that was unanimous on allowing the immigration status check to go forward. The court was divided on striking down the other portions.
Kennedy said the law could — and suggested it should — be read to avoid concerns that immigration status checks could lead to prolonged detention.
The court struck down these three major provisions: requiring all immigrants to obtain or carry immigration registration papers, making it a state criminal offense for an illegal immigrant to seek work or hold a job, and allowing police to arrest suspected illegal immigrants without warrants.
The Obama administration sued to block the Arizona law soon after its enactment two years ago. Federal courts had refused to let the four key provisions take effect.
Five states — Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah — have adopted variations on Arizona’s law. Parts of those laws also are on hold pending the outcome of the Supreme Court case.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor joined all of Kennedy’s opinion.
Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas would have allowed all the challenged provisions to take effect. Justice Samuel Alito would have allowed police to arrest undocumented immigrants who seek work, and also make arrests without warrants.
Scalia, in comments from the bench, caustically described Obama’s recently announced plans to ease deportation rules for some children of illegal immigrants.
“The president said at a news conference that the new program is ‘the right thing to do’ in light of Congress’ failure to pass the administration’s proposed revision of the Immigration Act. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of the Immigration Act that the president declines to enforce boggles the mind,” Scalia said.
The case focused on whether states can adopt their own immigration measures to deal with an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the face of federal inaction on comprehensive immigration reform, or whether the federal government has almost exclusive authority in the area of immigration.
Kennedy wrote obliquely about the impasse on immigration reform at the national level.
“Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the State may not pursue policies that undermine federal law,” Kennedy said.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said in a written statement that the ruling marks a victory for people who believe in the responsibility of states to defend their residents. “The case for SB1070 has always been about our support for the rule of law. That means every law, including those against both illegal immigration and racial profiling,” Brewer said. “Law enforcement will be held accountable should this statute be misused in a fashion that violates an individual’s civil rights.”
Civil rights groups that separately challenged the law over concerns that it would lead to rights abuses said their lawsuit would go on.
Even with the limitations the high court put on Arizona, the immigration status check still is “an invitation to racial profiling,” said American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Omar Jadwat.
BDN writer Judy Harrison contributed to this report.
As soon as the police in Arizona, and the 5 other states, start stopping white people for suspicion of being in the country illegally then the law will be OK.
How many white people are in this country illegally? Any idea?
PS – when was the last time you know of any person being pulled over for a traffic stop and not being required to show ID?
I happen to know of one in Maine and there are more than you would think. They just don’t make the news because a white illegal immigrant doesn’t raise the ire of most Americans.
Very rarely if you happen to be a passenger, for example. How many people do you know who carry around their naturalization papers?
Of course, this is precisely the reason why some wanted to issue drivers licenses to illegal aliens.
I thought it was so that those who are driving know the rules of the road. I doubt it was a conspiracy to make it appear that they are here legally. Especially since the mere possession of a valid driver license doesn’t guarantee that the holder is here legally.
That was the official reason, and it’s not a conspiracy. I was living out west for much of this argument, and it was definitely part of the narrative. People saw the lack of state ID, particularly a driver’s license, as a particular stumbling block for illegals staying below the radar.
Where were you out west?
I don’t see how holding a valid driver license means that one is here legally.
California, Colorado, and Utah.
I doesn’t make you legal here, but it was seen as a step toward legalization/amnesty/etc. The point seemed to be it made illegals “harder to catch,” and that was clearly the objective.
I want people to come to this country legally. But if someone is here illegally for whatever reason, he/she is not *entitled* to any public support or services.
It doesn’t matter how many white people are here illegally because there ARE white people here illegally. It sounds like you’re saying that it’s free season on non-whites because most whites are legal. If that’s the case, then that sounds like it could be discrimination.
This doesn’t just apply to drivers-what about passengers? Do they need to show papers? Or people on the street that are “behaving suspiciously”? And even drivers-could they have a valid license that was obtained before their visa expired?
You hit the nail on the head, you get stopped for a traffic violation you show drivers license.. Gee Wally.
And what about Americans who are not white and who have accents? What sort of papers must they show to prove that they are Americans?
As far as I know, Americans don’t need to “have papers” while in their own country, so I am not sure how this works in this and so many other cases…
What part of “illegal immigrant” does Obama and the left not understand???
Maybe these will help;
il·le·gal/iˈlēgəl/
Adjective:Contrary to or forbidden by law, esp. criminal law: “illegal drugs”.Noun:An illegal immigrant.
Synonyms:unlawful – illicit – illegitimate – lawless – wrongful
im·mi·grant/ˈimigrənt/ Noun:A person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country.An animal or plant living or growing in a region to which it has migrated.
Synonyms:migrant – incomer – emigrant
The article is about the Supreme Court.
It is about the supreme court poking holes in Arizona’s efforts to do SOMETHING about illegals.
Take a trip out there and have a look, I did.
This country is ruled by the Constitution. If want to do something about immigration, make sure it’s constitutional.
It is the President’s job to uphold the Constitution by enforcing the nation’s laws, not cherry-pick which ones he likes and does not like.
Is that anything like LePage not issuing the bonds the people ok’d? Actually, all administrators have to cherry pick because they work within a budget.
I think the Executive Branch has some constitutional responsibility to enforce the Law…and not just its favorite parts.
There is no constitutional responsibility to enforce laws that are unconstitutional.
So you’re saying the federal immigration laws now on the books are unconstitutional? No claim of that has been made.
Scroll up. I didn’t say that. I replied to a comment about the Arizona immigration law in which a significant portion has been ruled as unconstitutional.
But the major part of the law stayed, which is good…..
The President wasn’t being asked to enforce Arizona’s immigration laws, parts of which were found to be unconstitutional and one part of which was upheld. He is required to enforce the US Immigration laws. Unfortunately, he has failed in his oath to uphold the Constitution by failing to enforce the laws currently on the books. In fact, he has ordered his agency to further curtail enforcement by immediately ceasing a collaborative enforcement program as a further punishment to states that are embroiled in the immigration debate. We have 11.5 million illegal immigrants in this country. That is an estimate. The immigration program is outdated. Fair enough. Alter the program legally, through the congress, and allow illegals to apply for legal status. When the green cards are full, send the rest home. Let them stand in line and enter the country legally. If we want more of them here, allow for more applications. What is so difficult? Why do people insist on allowing criminals to skate? If this were any other country on earth, they would have been deported a long time ago, or locked up in jail. Instead, we want to encourage further illegal entries, and all of the burdens that accompany them.
If employers want to sponsor these immigrants – by all means! Register them as legal employees. And take legal employment responsibility for them. If they don’t need that many employees, they won’t register them, and the illegals can kindly leave in an orderly fashion, or risk being jailed for illegal immigration. This is how it works in most other free countries in the world. I worked overseas. I had an employment sponsor. Without that, I wouldn’t dare try to enter a country illegally. It’s a crime!!!
Well, he did try to push sensible legislation and it failed.
He didn’t change the law, he just prioritized its enforcement. There are limited resources and ever instance of illegal immigration can’t be addressed. Why is it a bad thing to focus on, let’s say, a violent illegal immigrant instead of an underaged student? It’s like fixing a leaking faucet when there is a fire going on in the kitchen.
Arizona’s law was declared unconstitutional because it encroached on Federal perogative by duplicating Federal laws…laws which *are* constitutional.
Maybe it’s best to not follow the constitution and just let the states do anything at all that they want?
Yeah, there are a lot of illegal immigrants in the southwest. But it’s easy to forget, it seems, that 10-15 years ago when workers were scarce, there were more people who wanted to work in the tech industry and fewer who wanted to do physical labor. Right now, I have no references to that, but I do know that, at a union picnic in the early 2000’s, I was told by a union leader that they had to open their membership to illegal immigrants because there weren’t enough citizens to hang drywall and do the other construction jobs.
We have a history in this country of looking the other way and letting people come across the border to pick our lettuce and clean our toilets when times are good and then turning on them and blaming them when times are bad.
6% of Arizonas population is illegal…
That is pretty high….
It is about the Court’s decision regarding enforcing Federal immigration laws already in place and the way that Arizona was trying to do just that.
“…..enforcing applications of the Immigration Act that the president declines to enforce boggles the mind,” Scalia said.”
Appointments to the Supreme Court should have term limits.
They do under the Constitution. It’s called “life”.
Sounds like Guest wants to redefine the Supreme Court….
Funny to see the different views different news sources have. CNN reports “blow to immigration law” and Arizona “went too far” while BBC reports “Arizona migrant check ruled legal.”
Funny to some; pathetic to me. The media is the problem, folks.
The word “media” is plural. The singular is “medium.” Your post should read: “The media are the problem.” One great thing about the USA is there is no monolithic, singular entity dispensing the official version of information. It’s up to us to sift through all the noise and decide what to think.
Your Washington Times spins the news just as fast.
Shows the lengths Libs will go to slap lipstick on a pig.
That is how the media does it…. They put a twist on it.
They dont report facts anymore…..
The headline should read, “Supreme Court Upholds the Key Provision of the Arizona Border Protection Law” because law enforcement officers will be checking for nationailty status during routine traffic stops. This is by far the most important aspect of the AZ law.
It is too bad the other provisions did not hold up, but the truly atrocious aspect of this circumstance is that Obama refuses to uphold the law and enforce our borders. To add injury to injury, Janet Napolitano issued the following (unconstitutional) decree today:
“The Obama administration said Monday it is suspending existing agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws, and said it has issued a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls reporting illegal immigrants that the Homeland Security Department may get from Arizona police.
“Administration officials, speaking on condition they not be named, told reporters they expect to see an increase in the number of calls they get from Arizona police — but that won’t change President Obama’s decision to limit whom the government actually tries to detain and deport.
“We will not be issuing detainers on individuals unless they clearly meet our defined priorities,” one official said in a telephone briefing.
“The official said that despite the increased number of calls, which presumably means more illegal immigrants being reported, the Homeland Security Department is unlikely to detain a significantly higher number of people and won’t be boosting personnel to handle the new calls.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/25/homeland-security-suspends-immigration-agreements-/
Remember this: a nation is defined by its borders and its laws, and illegal immigration offends both.
Until they have to stop because they are only asking brown-skinned people for their nationality status.
I am a blond, blue eyed white male, do you think an Arizona police officer is going to ask me for my “nationality status”?
So who exactly do see as the problem in Arizona? This racial profiling BS has gone to far. The leaders of this country take an oath to uphold the laws, not pick and choose what appeals to them like the religious fanatics.
Your reasoning is the same as letting 1/2 dozen Muslims board a plane unchecked, but stops a grandma and a 4 year old to check them.
You think that law enforcement should turn their head when they know that they are looking an illegal right in the face? You think that the Arizona tax dollars are better spent on illegals than their own people?
Actually, to be fair, you’re right. ALL people must be checked, whether they are a baby or a 90-year-old grandmother. ANYONE could have a bomb-ANYONE and EVERYONE is suspect. And that holds true on the streets, as well, with automatic license plate readers scanning every car, cameras on the streets watching people, and the advances in facial recognition technology that will render “papers” obsolete.
There are millions of Americans of Mexican descent born legally in Arizona, in fact some Mexican families lived there before white people even knew Arizona existed or before it became a US Territory.
You are OK with American citizens having to show their “nationality status” multiple times a day, week or month just based on the color of their skin? Not all Spanish Speaking brown-skinned people are illegal immigrants just like not all French Canadian speaking white people in Northern Maine are Canadian.
As for profiling, I am guessing that you would have been OK with every conservative white male being stopped for suspected illegal behavior after the Oklahoma City Federal Building was blown up?
If you were living in a state where Scandanavians were known to live and often shelter illegal aliens, and you didn’t speak any English and didn’t have any ID on you, then yes.
Is it then fair to harass and ask for papers of brown skinned legals and Americans who have accents? I know MANY legal people here who were born here and have a regional Mexican accent. This law will force them to prove their citizenship again and again because they are of Mexican heritage. And yes, sometimes, in some places, just being brown on the street at the wrong time is enough for suspicious behavior, especially in places where the majority of the police force is white.
No, it isn’t, actually. And putting the state in the situation where they have to resort to this is unacceptable, too.
Despite all the people on both sides who dislocated their shoulders patting themselves on the back yesterday, the parts of the bill that were struck down were killed because they are already federal laws on the books. Arizona did this NOT because they hate their citizens, but because–after years of begging the Federal Government to do its job–it had to act.
For the record, I am for comprehensive immigration reform. If people think the line to get into this country is too long, then change the law! But I insist on my government enforce the laws, especially when their inaction encumbers a state unfairly.
I believe what you are saying is true about the Arizona government and its governor not hating their citizens. Nor do I think that they hate illegal immigrants either. But having lived in an area of the country that is predominately Latino and having read comments by some people here and on other sites, I know that there are plenty of non-Latino people who are racist and drool at the prospect of using this law to round up all those dirty people and ship them back south of the border. (Never mind the cost of such actions-how would that cost compare to the cost of the illegals being in this country, many of whom do the work some fussy Americans don’t want to do?)
I agree that there needs to be reform, but one thing that’s being overlooked here is the cost of this new law to the people of Arizona.
They are plenty of racists…for certain. But that is not justification to nullify a set of laws for political expediency or force a state to expend limited resources supporting them. And I honor their desire to do some of these less popular jobs, and I again insist that the law be changed or enforced as is.
I agree that the cost of these laws to Arizona is an unfair burden…I pay Federal taxes to keep our borders secure, and neither I nor Arizonans are getting their money’s worth.
Did all this start in 2008? I mean, did Obama dismantle the efficient and routine border security that Bush had in place? I just don’t get why ALL this is being blamed in him?
Washington Times is hardly an objective news source….
SEVENTY-TWO HOUR COUNTDOWN TO “OBAMACARE” BEING FLUSHED DOWN THE TOILET.
Tick-Tock, Tick-Tock…..You Democrats starting to get nervous yet?
I don’t care either way how they rule but if you are wrong how are you going to feel? I understand you want to toot your horn but nobody has a clue on the results.
I don’t like the individual mandate, but this gloating even before this decision is silly and divisive.
On Thursday–The Supreme Court will rule that Obamacare’s “Individual Mandate” is Unconstitional and Obama will be SOL .
There’s a very good chance that they will also declare the whole mess as unconstitutional, far overreaching and over-stepping from one end of the bill to the other.
Obama’s only “achievement” will be shown as a dismal failure …and all supporting Democrats as co-equal losers for spending their time and energy on this issue rather than Jobs and the Economy.
In November, it’s BUB-Bye, Obama and maybe some of the Senate Democrats.
—>>>>
<<<—-
Doubt it. Doubt it very much. They said the same old tired thing about Reagan vs. Carter and look how that turned out.
//////\\\
You are a very obtuse individual if you think RR was a tired old man. You need to enlighten yourself.
Only in your dreams. Obummer will have a very tough election with NO achievements to crow about.
Bin Laden and Ghaddafi do not agree. Don’t believe me? Just ask them. Oh yeah, that’s right….
You really don’t think obama was responsible for bringing them down do you? It was in the works long before he was in the picture. He just took the kudos; as usual.
So who do you give credit to? Bush in his own words did not know where Bin Laden was, was not looking for him, and did not care. So credit goes to Clinton? Bush I? Carter?
No doubt you blame the ills of the economy on Obama, but credit anything good to Bush or some other republican. The fact is Obama made the decision to send in the Seal Team instead of the failed bombing as Bush did. Had the operation failed I suspect you and others would be screaming that Obama was a failure, just as Carter took the blame for the failed rescue in Iran.
Nixon, Carter, Reagan Bush I, and Clinton all failed to eliminate Ghaddafi, but with the help of the US under Obama, the Europeans solved the problem without the loss of a single American life.
It is always amusing how the right wing will avoid giving credit for good results, but ceaslessly rant about the negative as long as a democrat is involved. It shows in the posts here.
Now, I’m not saying this about you, Viper13, but it’s funny that some people say that Obama was merely in office at the time when those plans were finally executed so he can’t take credit for them. But at the same time, this economic mess is his fault, never mind that it began long before he was in office….
Bill Clinton had a far tougher chance of getting reelected. Unfortunately, the national GOP thought that, too, and ran Bob Dole. I feel like we’re here again, except I dislike Obama less than Clinton.
Mr. Romney has been running for this office for six years. There will be NO October surprises of any substance or merit. I promise.
On the other hand, it was recently proven that Obama was a registered member of the New Party, a far left Socialist movement that went nowhere, but was the perfect ideaological home of our 44th President. Not that the lamestream media will tell you this irrefutable fact.
Go Romney!
And your source for this “information”?
And good riddance, too!
Sounds like Arizona got the main part passed.
The other provisions are already law, supposedly
enforced by the fed govt which is a joke, which is why
they were voted against. Az law enforcement can now
ask for papers if they are within the new law to ask for them,
then they can inform ICE as to who they are and once again
we will see our fed govt in inaction of enforcing the law.
………………….
When you get a minute, Google up Sheriff Joe Arpaio. See what he is doing about illegals.
He should be running for president………….
No thanks. The republican contest had enough clowns for one election.
Headline should have read: High Court Keeps most important part of Arizona’s immigration law.
My question is, why should we even bother to listen to the Supreme Court? Obama has given us the model recently in his announcement that U.S. immigration laws no longer apply to 800,000 (or 1.4 million) illegal immigrants. A President sworn to enforce the laws has declared that he will instead overturn them by personal fiat. So why should any of us obey the law? Or, why not just obey the laws we like and not the rest? After all, illegal immigrants get to pick and choose which laws they will obey. To take just one example, do you think, if Obamacare is upheld, that illegal immigrants will be forced to buy health insurance like the rest of us? – Of course they won’t.
Obama’s actions are an invitation to anarchy.
As an aside, during her law school years at U.Va., (1980-83), Homeland Security Director and former Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano headed the migrant worker project of the student-run Legal Assistance Society, providing free legal advice to Virginia migrant farm workers, legal status or otherwise. It is an interesting turn of her career that she now winds up ordering Homeland Security not to talk to Arizona law enforcement authorities who want to report illegal immigrants. Almost sounds like a personal agenda.
As others have pointed out, there is a limited amount of money available for law enforcement, especially with the teaparty republicans cutting federal spending. It becomes necessary to prioritize where that money is spent. It seems to me better to put the resources on deporting those who have shown they are violent or connected to drugs rather that worrying about kids who are here because their parents brought them when they were too young to have a say in the matter. Many of these children do not speak any language other than english, have successfully attended American schools, consider themselves American, and will make positive contributions to the US. Give them all a chance to contribute and become legal citizens. Worry more about the ones who are a danger to society.
Such as the violent Mexican drug dealers who freely cross the U.S. border into Arizona due to lax federal immigration enforcement, to wreak havoc on U.S. citizens? Good suggestion. No, wait, Obama says Arizona can’t “interfere” with his (not Congress’) policy of opening the Arizona border to any and all.
Even if the feds lack money to enforce federal immigration laws because giving it to your campaign contributors (aka Solyndra) is more important to Obama, Arizona has offered to step up and pick up the slack. Why rebuff that offer?
Here’s the key: Obama’s party wants more and more laws to regulate more and more aspects (ultimately every aspect) of individual life and conudct. Then Obama gets to decide which laws to enforce, and against whom. That is the definition of tyranny.
I personally would not object to a more open U.S. immigration law. After all, perhaps 98% of us have ancestors who came here as immigrants. What troubles me is the President’s example of nullifying existing laws duly enacted by Congress. What troubles me is a federal government that shirks its fundamental constitutional obligation to defend the states, then bars the states from defending themselves.
It’s not just Obama who wants “wants more and more laws to regulate more and more aspects (ultimately every aspect) of individual life and conduct,” it’s BOTH sides. It’s the federal government as a whole-this is NOT a Democrat only scheme.
Doesn’t it trouble you, too, that a state can make laws that are contrary to our country’s Constitution?
Unconstitutional state laws can be challenged in federal court. Wouldn’t it be nice if unconstitutional actions by the President could be challenged in state court.
How would that work? Federal questions aren’t answered in state courts. If your claim against a party is a matter of federal law/the Constitution, the case goes into federal court.
My point exactly. The balance of power between state and federal authorities is unequal. Therefore, there is more to be feared from unconstitutional actions of federal officials, than from unconstitutional actions by states.
But you’re asking a question about the Constitution. A state court, per the US Constitution, does not have the authority to make a decision on that matter, only federal courts can do that.
A state can sue a federal official and a federal official can sue a state. This has all happened before. You have to be in the right court though to persue a claim. If your claim is a matter of state law, you’ll usually end up in state court. If your claim is a matter of federal law/Constitutional, you’ll end up in federal court.
I guess I don’t see your point as to why the venue matters. You’re not barred from making constitutional claims.
My initial comment, to which all of these replies should pertain, was that Obama is setting an example of disregard for the law, when he picks and chooses which laws he will enforce, while nullifying others by executive order.
The subordinate point is that unconstitutional actions by the President are more to be feared than unconstitutional actions by the states, because federal power is so much greater than that of the states. As a minor illustration of that disparity, to the extent that both the states and the feds have recourse to the courts with regard to each others’ unconstitutional actions, the courts to which they have recourse are appointed by and responsive to federal, not state, authority. That’s like having the home team provide the referee, with the federal government always being the home team.
You see this in the Supreme Court’s decision. Five justices hold that Arizona’s criminalization of conduct (illegal immigration) that is already a violation of federal criminal law is an unconstitutional interference with federal immigration policy. But “federal immigration policy” is expressed in the existing immigration laws duly enacted by Congress, which President Obama has nullified by his executive order. So what Arizona’s law would interfere with is not federal immigration policy, but the unconstitutional nullification of federal immigration policy by a rogue president. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court majority struck down the criminal provisions of Arizona’s law as an infringement on federal authority, without regard to the license that their decision will give to the exercise of unconstitutional powers by the President.
But the judiciary isn’t responsive to the executive or legislative branches. They’re co-equal.
I also think your assertion about the recent ruling is incorrect. Arizona doesn’t have the authority to implement laws that interfere with the federal government’s laws on matters of immigration. Just the same as a state court doesn’t have the authority to hear constitutional questions. They just don’t have the power to do it.
I don’t think the President is going rogue or being unconstitutional either. To be honest, that just sounds like hyperbole to me.
It is one thing to give priority to enforcement of certain types of cases. It is quite another thing to declare, by executive order, that a federal law will no longer apply to a large group (800,000 to 1.4 million) of people to whom the law, on its face, applies.
I take it you are also aware that, immediately following the Supreme Court’s decision, the Obama administration directed the INS not to accept reports of immigration violations from Arizona law enforcement authorities. The State of Arizona may no longer even report federal immigration law violations to federal authorities, even in cases involving illegal immigrants with a history of violence or drug crimes. So Obama is not going to take enforcement action in those cases either, at least not in Arizona.
Oh, come on. You need to get better and more reliable sources of information. That’s obviously untrue.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/25/homeland-security-suspends-immigration-agreements-/
That article states things wildly different from what you were claiming. They’re not going to ignore or refuse to enforce immigration laws in Arizona — that’s a ridiculous claim. They’re just going to enforce things in Arizona like they enforce them everywhere. Very different from what you claimed.
I like how the right wing nuts keep mentioning Solyndra like a broken record. It was one failure among many (100s) successful loan programs and the loan process was started under Bush’s watch.
As far as the war on drugs, it has been a failure no matter which party is in office. Criminals will find a way around any attempt to restrict their movements. Criminals by definition do not follow the law, and no matter how many times they are deported, they will return if they want to.
Why rebuff the offer of states enforcing federal law? Because it is in the US Constitution that it is the federal government’s power, not the state’s power.
In regards to Obama making more laws to restrict individual freedom, are you talking about all the gun restrictions he did not introduce, but about which the NRA and other right wing nuts claimed were in the works? By the way, this is one of the main reasons that I, as a gun owner, will never support the NRA or other idiots making the same claims. All they have accomplished is to panic those who cannot think for themselves and cause the price of second hand guns to skyrocket. This has made it harder for me to buy more guns.
The only laws restricting personal freedom I have seen are those pushed through by ALEC and the teaparty republicans to restrict women’s rights and disenfranchise millions of voters.
Every effort to get the Dream Act through Congress has been blocked by republicans, who fail to see the value of young people raised and educated here in the US, regardless of their parent’s failures.
Every effort to improve the economy has been blocked by the right wing of the republican party because it would not give more tax breaks to the wealthy.
Mitt Rmoney has dodged around the question about his solution to illegal immigrants every time he has been asked in the last few days.He has dodged the question about how he will create jobs except to say he worked at Bain, which destroyed companies and exported jobs to China.
Obama will win heavily in this election simply because people have seen what Rmoney and the teaparty republicans have to offer-more Bush economics.
Wow, that was quite a rant.
Concerning the Dream Act, there are both pros and cons. One of the cons is that passage of the act would provide a new incentive to further illegal immigration, by holding out the hope that the children you bring with you will be allowed to stay in the U.S. if you lie low long enough. In this respect, the Dream Act would be grossly unfair to those who patiently stand in line to immigrate to the U.S. legally. But it is truly troubling that, if he doesn’t get his way, Obama simply nullifies current immigration law by executive order. That’s unconstitutional, pure and simple, but no one seems willing to call him on it.
It’s more like police officers not ticketing or pulling over those driving only 5 mph faster than the speed limit. There is only so much that can be done, only so many resources that can be spent — why not focus on the most egregious offenders first?
Suppose a Republican president proposed that capital gains taxes be repealed but Congress failed to do so. Suppose further that the same president issued an executive order directing the IRS not to collect capital gains taxes on taxpayers with annual investment incomes of $1 million or more, because they already contributed to the national economy as “job creators”, and in the same order announced that this select group of taxpayers would not be prosecuted for failing to declare long-term capital gains on their tax returns. After all, the IRS’s “scarce resources” would be far better directed going after those with unreported income from illegal activities such as drugs and gambling.
Would you have any problems with that?
Before you simply roll over on the ability of a Democrat president to nullify existing law by executive order, please recall that one of the worst instances of ethnic profiling in this nation’s history, the forced removal and multi-year detention of 110,000 legal Japanese-American citizens and residents from the west coast during World War II, was directed by executive order of a Democrat president – Franklin Roosevelt. Ditto for the Cherokee indian removal (“Trail of Tears”) ordered by Democrat president Andrew Jackson, after the Supreme Court had struck down a removal statute as unconstitutional.
Our constitutional system is a system of checks and balances. No president should assert a power to nullify existing law by executive order.
I don’t think that is a flush analogy whatsoever. Tax code is universally applied. Criminal charges aren’t as it is impossible to prosecute every crime committed. That’s why I pointed to the speeding example.
What you mean is, it is o.k. for Obama to nullify federal law by executive order, but not for a Republican president to do so.
I didn’t say anything near that.
I said your example about tax application isn’t a good analogy because it’s very easy to apply tax law in a uniform manner. I probably wouldn’t support Obama’s action if immigration law was as easy to enforce. The fact is that more deportations and more action has been made on curbing illegal immigration under the Obama immigration. I think it is smart to prioritize which cases need our immediate attention.
Only a fraction of illegal immigrants will be punished and that’s true regardless of Obama issuing this executive order or not. I think it is prudent to take on a violent and unproductive illegal immigrant before dealing with a student, for example. That has nothing to do with politics, I think that is common sense. I’m going to deal with the fire in the kitchen before I deal with the leaking faucet.
Claiming my statement of fact is a rant shows your inability to address the issue in an intelligent manner, as expected from those with no clue.
Contrary to what you may believe, reciting the DNC’s latest (and tiresome) campaign talking points is not “address[ing] the issue[s] in an intelligent manner.”
I cannot recite the DNC talking points since I do not read them anywhere.
You apparently believe the federal government has unlimited resources to enforce the law. That isn’t even remotely possible, therefore prioritize how it is enforced. Go after the violent criminals and drug dealers. Leave kids and otherwise productive individuals after the violent ones are deported.
Allowing states to write their own laws regarding immigrants would violate the Constitution and, as others have pointed out, put a huge burden on local law agencies.
BDN can try to paint it any way they want, we all know this was a major blow to obama. And this Thursday will come the knockout blow! Soon obama will be synonymous with failure!
That’s really gotta hurt you Libs.
Why the playground taunting?
Wow, if you tried the immigration tricks in Switzerland they would nab you and evict you. Only citizens have “rights”.
Want a classic example of the dishonesty of the Left? Here you go:
The Left long ago dubbed the provision that passed SCOTUS review as the “Show Me Your Papers” provision, when in fact, this provison entirely relies upon the resources of the state and federal government to determine whether a person who is pulled over for a traffic stop is in the US legally or not. One must not carry papers in AZ tomorrow, or the next day.
SCOTUS actually rejected the true-to-its-meaning “show-me-your-papers” provision that would have required those here on Greencards etc to carry their papers on them at all times should they be pulled over.
See the difference? The real SMYP provision was rejected, yet forever more the Left will moan that SMYP is now the law of the land. This is the definition of propaganda.
Orwellian, and pathetic.
Dishonesty of the right? How about Charlie Webster, Charlie Summers, Bruce Poliquin…
Fishing for red herring lately?
I think that the red herring is a requirement for discussion here on the BDN! They’re so tasty, too!
Yet another inconvenient truth.
PROTECT AMERICANS, NOT ILLEGAL ALIENS?
JOIN YOUR LOCAL TEA PARTY AND FIGHT BACK, SAVING AMERICA
FROM INVASION.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court released their opinion Today
that the federal government has the sole power to enforce the laws against
illegal immigration, striking down three key provisions of Arizona’s
first-in-the nation crackdown on illegal aliens squatting there and stealing
our children’s education, American family health care and a cornucopia of
welfare payments and programs. ONLY THE
TEA PARTY CAN SAVE US NOW. THE TEA PARTY IS EVERY WALK OF LIFE, EVERY RACE,
& EVERY RELIGION THAT HAVE HAD IT WITH THE TWO POLITICAL PARTIES. ID YOU
DON’T WANT A SOCIALIST FUTURE, EVERY AMERICAN WHO HAS NEVER VOTED—SHOULD VOTE.
NON-CITIZENS WILL VOTE TO SAVE OBAMA.
Two very important laws must be imposed at once, so no
more foreign invaders are encouraged to break the immigration ‘Rule of Law’. ‘THE LEGAL WORKFORCE ACT’ must be passed and advanced, so
illegal aliens can no longer steal jobs from the millions of Americans
unemployed. The ‘BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP
ACT (H.R.140) must be compulsory so babies
smuggled into America, so that parents cannot take benefit from welfare, once
the child become an immediate citizen. Half a million pregnant women enter the
United States looking for handouts annually, for their children. Let your Senator or Congressman/Women know how you will vote,
by giving your name to the politician’s aides and that you want them to sponsor
E-Verify and the Birthright Citizenship bills. Citizen voters should phone Congress at the central
Switchboard at 202-224-3121. FORCE YOUR CONGRESSMAN/WOMAN TO fulfill their
obligation to the oath of office and stop pandering to the businesses that use
cheap labor. Use the power of your VOTE to demand they sponsor these to
policies or we are destined to become like Europe, overwhelmed by the poverty
of other countries.
SO NOW ITS IMPERATIVE
THAT THE PEOPLE, MOVE WITH ALL THE EMPOWERMENT THAT OUR UNIQUE SOVEREIGNTY AND
THE CONSTITUTION TO REMOVE ALL REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT INCUMBENTS INCLUDING
THOSE A STATE LEVEL WHO ARE NOT PROTECTING AMERICANS FROM THE ILLEGAL ALIEN
INVASION. WITH STATE SOVEREIGNTY BEING STOLEN EACH DAY, THE STATES ARE BEING
FORCED TO RELINQUISH THEIR POWER TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. HUNDREDS OF
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS ARE BEING EXTORTED FROM ALL TAXPAYERS BY FEDERAL MANDATE TO
MAKE LIFE EASIER FOR FOREIGN NATIONALS. IT IS TIME TO THINK OF OUR OWN PEOPLE
AND CUT OUT FOREIGN AID, AND INSTEAD LOOK AFTER ARE OWN SICK, HOMELESS AND
WOUNDED AND OUR JOBLESS WORKERS?
Remember, we must restore America and not stop until every political
parasite is voted out and sent home in disgrace. Obama will crush America, if he
gets a majority of the Hispanic vote and our only chance for America to survive
is the TEA PARTY. Legal Hispanics will vote for Obama, to insure he keeps the
illegal relatives in the USA.
“The fight for
America is on! But we don’t fight alone. Cadres of invisible Patriots have been
silently empowering the Tea Party, working tirelessly behind the scenes to
restore America. Their names carry no political weight, they do not seek glory
nor will their acts ever be recorded in the history books, but they are
indispensable in the fight against the darkness that blankets America. These
invisible Patriots are the Tea Party Guardians, guarding all we hold dear.”
LOOK TO VOTING OUT THE POLITICIANS WHO HAVE NEAR BANKRUPTED THIS NATION AND
REPLACE THEM WITH TRUE TEA PARTY LAWMAKERS.
Now we have a pharaoh in power, which has torn up the most
precious of document called the Constitution, in his pursuit of absolute power. In his term he has hired a bunch of Marxist
and ultra left Socialists that have done almost irreparable damage to our
economy. His henchman like the despicable U.S. Attorney General has been on a
‘Witch Hunt’ escalating his intimidation on initially Arizona, with his warlord
rumbling against Alabama and Georgia. Because these states dared to introduce
legislation, to remove illegal aliens that are not only stealing American
welfare by court mandate, but by causing mayhem by drunken drivers on our
highways, but attacking children and women. This miserable human being called
Eric Holder who reigns over us with a big stick, with his legions of overpaid
public servants called attorneys.
ILLEGAL ALIENS ARE NOT AMERICANS? THEY ARE CRIMINALS WHO
ENTERED A SOVEREIGN COUNTRY. THEY CAME HERE FOR TWO THINGS, TO TAKE YOUR JOBS
AND YOU’RE PUBLIC SERVICES?
Then we have Obama forcing the American people to forfeit
their money to pay for a Socialist style health care. Money extorted from
taxpayers, for probably a large proportion of people who live like leeches of
the rest of us. Obviously the 22 million illegal aliens in the country will
remain free of payment for Obama’s health care package. Not just illegal
aliens, but a mixture of the population who sleep late, eat their fast food,
watch TV and play video games on a computer. With this potentate in power unemployment
is through the roof. Food stamps are at a full time high and the lines of
illegal aliens, who have smuggled their babies over here before they were born,
have been instructed by verbal guides that once here their child can claim
citizenship. This in itself has become a hundred billion dollar industry of
child health care, education and a long list of financial payments, that even
citizens are declined to collect. Illegal Immigration has become blight and
Americans under President Obama will pay a dear price.
It will be them against US in the 2012 election and both
Obama and Romney are already trying to pacify the majority of ethnic voters
across the U.S. The only possible the American voter can gain the momentum to
remove Obama and his crowd from office; not saying that even Mitt Romney is any
better and should drive the old incumbents out and replace them with TEA PARTY
leaders. Only then will we return sanity to this Congress. Only by replacing
the Senators and Congressman in both traditional parties will anything ever
change and who seem completely oblivious to the survival of the middle
class? Under Obama we will sink even
deeper into a high spending manic and with Romney more latitude for Wall
Street. Just the TEA PARTY will reroute America on a path of Success, if they
can significantly displace the usual, spineless politicians with new ideas,
which will elevate this country to a decent future for all. It would be highly complementary to also dump
the Governors, Mayors, Police Chiefs and every elected official with TEA PARTY
associates and rid ourselves of those bodies who pamper special interest
groups, Obama fodder and the whole slew of individuals are working against the
greater good of ALL Americans.
If you want to read the specifics concerning the
lawlessness traitorous actions within Washington, then bookmark the ‘AMERICAN
PATROL’ website. AMERICAN PATROL
is a up to date disclosure site of the nationwide E-media and newspapers, blogs
and commentary that the Liberal press prefers to keep from the
public. Daily, the truth is revealed about illegal immigration and the
corruption in Washington and state Capitols. PAY ATTENTION TO
ILLEGAL ALIENS VOTING IN THE UPCOMING ELECTIONS FOR OBAMA .
Interesting enough my message
cannot get into the mainstream Liberal press, where I am banned for telling the
truth.
NO COPYRIGHT. DELIVER TO YOUR
FRIENDS & FAMILY
And we’ll welcome those “leaches” into our country to pick our grapes and clean our toilets when the times are roaring again.
This rhetoric is frightening to all who love America.
Something to think about:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-arizona-enforce-20120626,0,2658367.story
“Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck said it was bad policy to use local law enforcement to enforce immigration laws. “It breaks down trust and limits cooperation in a large segment of the population we serve [and] overtaxes our limited resources,” he said.In a news conference Monday, Villasenor, the Tucson police chief, expressed a similar concern — that the law would damage the relationship his department had worked to mold with the city’s Latino community.
He said his officers on average had cited and released thousands of people a year. Now, police officers will have to verify people’s immigration status before letting them go, depending on how quickly federal officials respond.
“I think this is a setback for local law enforcement,” Villasenor said. “This is not what we’re here to do. We’re here to ensure the safety of all involved.”
Each state has a right to govern itself. Why are the feds involved at all. Their decision is null and void. Arizona has a right to protect it’s borders. Plain and simple. Sick, sick, sick of government ‘telling’ everyone what to do.
There are certain areas in which federal law take precedent over state law and immigration is one of them. There is a purpose to federal law and it’s illogical to say imply that states are the same as sovereign countries.
It does not trouble me if the State Of Arizona takes action when the Feds are doing nothing about the problem.
When there is a 30 mile deep no mans land in OUR OWN COUNTRY that is not safe to step foot in we have a problem. A joke of a wall on the border, our own citizens can not safely live in their own homes and ranchs??? Can we no longer defend our own borders???
That is something they should leave in the hands of the FEDS who do NOTHING about it???
If it were the Canadian border and you could not climb Mt Katadhin without fearing for your personal safety I guarantee that you all would be outraged and wondering why help was not on the way…all depends on who’s backyard it is happening in IMHO.