The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on Monday to throw out parts of Arizona’s immigration law cannot be labeled a human rights victory. But it was a good decision because it reaffirmed that immigration laws are the purview of the federal government.
It would be inappropriate for states to devise their own immigration laws because of resulting confusion and possible extreme enactments. Federal immigration officers also receive the pertinent training, while state officers often do not.
After the court’s ruling, Arizona cannot criminally charge people who fail to carry identification documents; cannot criminally charge undocumented immigrants who seek work; and cannot permit police to arrest people without obtaining warrants when they suspect people are in the U.S. illegally.
The court did rule in favor of a significant part of the Arizona law, which requires state officers, when they detain someone, to verify the person’s immigration status with the federal government if “reasonable suspicion” exists that the person is in the U.S. illegally.
But the court acknowledged an opening for a future change of opinion. It said it would be inappropriate to assume the provision — deemed the “show me your papers” requirement — would conflict with federal law without an interpretation from the state courts, which are considering the matter.
We understand the court’s decision on the provision and we’ll wait to see if it results in racial profiling or long detainments of suspected illegal immigrants. If it does, lawsuits challenging that part of the law could result in another Supreme Court decision that knocks it down as unconstitutional.
The reality is that the court’s decision this week will have little impact on Mainers, where unauthorized immigrants comprise less than 1 percent of the state’s work force. Maine saw a bill similar to the Arizona one in 2011, but the sponsor withdrew it, signaling a lack of appetite for pushing the matter.
If illegal immigrants become a legislative topic when the Legislature convenes in January, lawmakers would do well to remember the lesson of this recent ruling: States cannot subvert federal law.
Arizona can’t make it a crime when people fail to carry identification papers because it replicates federal statutory requirements. The state can’t make it a crime for illegal immigrants to seek work because the federal law already imposes penalties on employers.
Further, the state can’t arrest a person suspected of being an illegal immigrant without a warrant because it would give state officers greater authority to arrest aliens than Congress has given to trained federal immigration officers.
“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,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the opinion of Arizona et al v. United States.
He was supported by Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito filed opinions agreeing and disagreeing in different parts. Justice Elena Kagan did not participate in the decision.
The court wisely kept immigration law under the scope of the federal government. Hopefully the one portion that didn’t violate federal authority — the “show me your papers” requirement — won’t result in racial profiling. But if it does — and many people say it will — the matter should go back to court to determine its constitutionality.
I love it…all in favor over the overturn, with a hope of overturning the last provision. No call for the Feds to enforce the laws on the books. And you ask, BDN, why people think you lean left.
You have the Supreme Court’s vote backwards. The vote to overturn the criminal provisions of Arizona’s law was 5-3. The vote to uphold the provision requiring law enforcement officers to inquire into immigration status of individuals stopped for other crimes, when there is probable cause to believe teh individual is an illegal immigrant, was 8-0. So it was “all in favor of” the portion of the law that was upheld, with a split vote on the portions that were struck down.
I was commenting on the BDN’s take on the rulings.
” it reaffirmed that immigration laws are the purview of the federal government.”
And it illustrates the obozo administration’s unwillingness to do the job, blatant pandering for the Hispanic vote, and total disrespect for the rule of law!
How about a comment on the administrations disrespect for the law for political purposes?
How about a few articles on exactly what this community
organizer and his cronies are doing in a lot of things. He thinks
we want his marxist transforming of America for 4 more years?
I’d vote for Jimmy Carter before I would ever vote for this guy.
At least Carter didn’t dislike his country and didn’t think he was
a dictator.
Marxist? Any real Marxist would say you’re a loony. The real socialists say all of this silly talk about Obama (who got the capitalist Romneycare bill passed by Congress, without any “socialist” public option in it at all) being a “socialist” is one of the funniest things they ever heard! Right-wingers apparently don’t know what actual socialism is. They just think it is an all-purpose insult for anyone less conservative than Attila the Hun.
I never would have thought that Americans would elect a Marxist and i don’t believe they have yet. But the longer this administration goes on the more I fear for the country. Its as if he (Obama) is intentionally setting us up to fight each other. That is the time some more radical authoritarian will rear its head, either from the left or right. It has happened rather quickly in other countries and we are not immune.
Cheesecake, you and I do see this differently.
I see the Republicans in Congress (most of them) along with their ideological bosses (Rupert Murdoch, Fox News, the Koch brothers, Rush Limbaugh, etc.) setting us up to fight one another. While I think that President Obama could have sometimes done a better job at reaching out to moderate Republicans like Senator Snowe, he seems to me to be far less to blame for this impasse than the Republicans.
If we were to elect a Republican President, even Mitt Romney (the least dangerous of this year’s field of loonies) and kept the House in Republican hands, and (God forbid) got a Republican Senate along with our current Republican Supreme Court — on top of the unlimited corporate money in politics from the Citizen’s United ruling, and the attempts to crush what’s left of the unions — I’m truly afraid that our nation would go down the tubes.
I see a Republican-induced disaster looming. Maybe we wouldn’t be quite as bad as Mussolini’s Italy or Franco’s Spain, but we would be headed in that direction.
In order to put a check on such horrors, I believe we must re-elect the president.
While I think that President Obama could have sometimes done a better
job at reaching out to moderate Republicans like Senator Snowe, he seems
to me to be far less to blame for this impasse than the Republicans.
This is not true. It’s not by accident that Sen Snowe has not met/spoken with President Obama since the healthcare double cross. 2.5 years.
Funny I see a Democrat induced disaster on the horizon myself. He has done a good job dividing and the impetus was first the healthcare bill and his unwillingness to cross the aisle for that and the stimulus which was designed to pay off the people that got him elected not to rebuild the economy. The man is a danger. It isn’t him but what follows him if he has four more years. He will try to more the country farther to the left that it is and who knows what will replace him. We could find ourselves looking a lot like the Balkan countries… ( a prediction by a well know Russian historian.)
I criticized Obama for not reaching out to Snowe — and you appear to disagree with that. Did I miss something? I thought you would agree that Obama did a poor job of reaching out to Snowe. I think you disagree with me just to be disagreeable, just as you constantly disapprove of everything any Democrat does, just because they’re Democrats. I would think you would APPROVE of Obama’s tough policy on sending back unauthorized immigrants, but because he’s a Democrat, you disapprove even of that. That’s the kind of partisanship coming from the Republicans that is dividing our country and causing these problems. You are the problem that you disapprove of.
No, I just don’t think you understand that he burned some bridges with Ms Snowe not simply didn’t “reach out.”
I think much of the time we just plain don’t understand each others frame of reference. Do you recall the discussion a few months back about how libs and conservatives think differently when approaching politics. Good example. I didn’t take what you said as criticism rather as an excuse. Oh ‘He could have done a better job” Sounds to me like what I say to my son when he gets a “B” in HS history.
I admit that I look at everything this Democrat does through a jaundiced eye. This President has given reason to. Progressives to me are scary creatures having a tendency to the authoritarian side of things.
I don’t think you know where I stand on immigration. You have made some assumptions based on what kind of conservative you think I am. But my objection is not so much what the rule change does but the nasty politics and the authoritarian nature of what he did.
Hmmm….
You say, “Progressives to me are scary creatures having a tendency to the authoritarian side of things.”
Well, conservatives to me are scary creatures having a tendency to the authoritarian side of things. Joe McCarthy, The John Birch Society, Jerry Falwell, Rick Santorum — I think they’re scary creatures having a tendency to the authoritarian side. Richard Nixon, sometimes a conservative, sometimes a moderate, turned me off to the Republican Party for a long while with his distain for the rule of law.
We justifiably fear both the far left and the far right — the far right has included the KKK in our country, and the far left has included the Black Panthers, the Weathermen, and other such radical groups of the late ’60s and early ’70s.
In Europe the worst of the far left was Stalin, the worst of the far right was Hitler. We rightly fear these extremes!
I’m not a “leftist” nor do I generally call myself a “progressive,” but only a “liberal.” Liberal and liberty come from the same root. I see the Founding Fathers as having been largely liberals, also Abraham Lincoln, TR and FDR, Harry Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John and Robert and Ted Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson (with all of his faults), Margaret Chase Smith, George Romney, Ed Brooke, George McGovern, Mark Hatfield, Walter Mondale, good liberals all, and none of them scary. The right has demonized the word “liberal” and it has fallen into disuse, but I’m still a liberal.
I understand that Hillary Clinton prefers “progressive,” and I don’t know what Obama would describe himself as, maybe “progressive.” I like them both (and trust them far more than I trust most Republicans) but that’s not to say that I haven’t sometimes been disappointed in the president.
Speaking of grades, I’d give Obama a “C-” in reaching out across the asile. I’d give the Republican freshmen in the House an “F” and give the Republican and Democratic leadership in both the House and Senate a “D.”
I’d give Olympia Snowe in recent years a “C,” but a few years earlier I would haven given her a “B+.” She became much more “party-line” in the last couple of years.
I’m not terribly happy with any of them in this regard.
Actually they don’t feel their guy has gone far enough.
This was their big chance and he only went as far as he knew he
could get away with and he is looking for another term to go even
further. Try reading the communist manifest and Mao’s red book.
The person impersonating a president was surrounded by marxists
growing up and he even told you he gravitated to them. He also
was now known to have joined a socialist organization. Yep! I am a
loony Dem who is just loony enough to see what this guy has done and
is trying to do. Instead of calling someone a right winger, try listening
and reading more than BDN or MSNBC.
Well it’s true that personally, I would have liked a health care bill that had a little bit of “socialism” in it — a “public option.” The Obamacare/Romneycare plan sends everyone to private (capitalist) insurance companies. I would have liked one option to be a government-run option like Medicare is.
But we’ve had Medicare for decades, and Social Security too, and they’re not scary even if they can be loosely described as “socialist.” My conservative Republican sister loves her Medicare and her Social Security. She seems unaware that the Democrats passed those plans, the Republicans opposed them, and that they are governmnet-run plans. They are what she hates, except that she loves them. Go figure.
Our highways are public, so that makes them “socialist” too, just like the fire department and the police department. Yet they’re not so scary.
But Obama didn’t want to offer a “public option.” He kept the health care plan entirely capitalist. The Obamacare plan based on the plan the Republicans were offering as the alternative to more liberal plans proposed by Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton.
Obama is basically a moderate on the health care issue, which is what makes it so comical when people call his capitalist health insurance plan “Marxist.” I guess they just use the word as a one-size-fits-all insult without even knowing what it means.
Obama wanted and still wants a single payer system,
completely socialist. He knew it would never fly under
that guise so he went this route which is his next best thing
and just the first step in forcing this country to that extreme.
As for soc sec and medicare, for those who have paid into a
system that has become one that has been raped by the fed
govt, why shouldn’t they get back what they put in. After all,
wasn’t it their own money the govt took for their “benefit’? Since
the govt is “running” them so well, then why are they in a position
of being out of money in a few years? Asfor those programs
validity, show me where the govt had the
right or authority under law to force people to accept them?
Even a republican should get their money back…no? As for police
and fire depts, they go back to the earliest of time and people even
back in the old west paid for protection, nothing socialist about that.
As for my marxist comment, unless you are telling me you are a socialist
or a marxist and are proficient on the subject, I am only stating what
our community organizer has told us. He was mentored by them, associated
with them, hung with them and uses their philosophy. He don’t dare
say he is one, he doesn’t have to, he is one. As for being “moderate”, that is
the best one I have heard in a month.
You write, “Obama waanted and still wants a single-payer system, completely socialist.”
You must have amazing abilities — the power to read minds! personally, I always fail the mind-reading test. Actually, everyonme does.
Obama has never advocated a single-payer system, did not propose one, and when the progressives were pleading with him to at least include a government-run “public option” as part of the plan, he refused to put it in. As the Republicans are fond of pointing out, the Affordable Care Act passed without any Republican votes. So, if he wanted a public option in the plan, he would have put it in. Instead, he proposed exactly what he wanted, a capitalist “Romneycare” plan that send everyone to private insurance companies, thus bolstering the capitalist system that he supports (as do I).
You can’t stand the fact that he’s for capitalism, so you pretend to have read his mind and found out that he’s really for the opposite of what he asks Congress to pass.
You write, “As for those programs [Social Security and Medicare] validity, show me where the govt had the right or authority under law to force people to accept them?”
First, do you want to repeal those necessary and much-loved programs? Good luck there. Do you drive on our “socialist” highways — and did the government have the right to tax you to build “socialist” highways and provide you with a “socialist” fire department? No? Then don’t drive, and pray that your house never catches on fire.
Then, show me where in the Constitution President Jefferson had the authority to purchase the Louisiana Territory (which at that time extended from Louisiana to what is now Minnesota and Montana). The Constitution doesn’t give the federal government the right to purchase territory. Should we give it back to France? Was Jefferson wrong to double the size of the United States with that purchase? He decided to interpret the Constitution broadly — because it didn’t say he couldn’t do it, he could.
I don’t watch MSNBC — most of their folks are too angry and too partisan for my taste. It’s the mirror image of Fox News, just partisan blather. A pox on both their houses.
“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,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the opinion of Arizona et al v. United States.”
Obama has no problem undermining federal law. Arizona can’t do it but Obama can?
God save us from this man who will sell us out for a vote.
Unhelpful partisan baloney.
But entirely accurate.
The Obama decision to ignore immigration laws is itself a partisan decision and again our President has decided that as divider-in-chief its within his right to set citizens against each other for political gain.
Almost every president since John Adams has interpreted presidential powers in an expansive way. One who didn’t, James Buchanan, should have.
Where were the Republicans when divider-in-chief Bush 43 was violating the Constitution? Oh, I remember. They were defending him.
The Congress made a legal decision and Obama choose to ignore it with the Dream Act.
Then he had DHS retaliate against Arizona because they had the audacity to make the immigration challenge in court.
Please tell me which law where a decision was made by Congress that Bush took it upon himself to ignore?
I would also be interested whether its just your opinion or is there some real legal challenge to your charge of Bush violating the Constitution. Because to be honest I have not heard of such a case moving through the courts. Enlighten please?
“Please tell me which law where a decision was made by Congress that Bush took it upon himself to ignore?”
Cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted — see Amendment VIII of the Constitution (passed by Congress and ratified by the various States). Cheney said that water-boarding is not torture, but John McCain, who knows something about torture, said it is. We could also talk about Amendment IV and Amendment VI, and the Patriot Act (which Ron Paul and a lot of libertarians don’t like any more than I do).
And President Obama has been a lot tougher enforcing the immigration laws than Bush 43 ever was — why aren’t you criticizing Bush 43 (and 41 for that matter, and Reagan) for not being as tough as Obama’s record of enforcing the laws of Congress by expelling unauthorized immigrants? Oh, because they’re Republicans.
I opposed the Patriot Act when liberal University friends were supporting it in 2003 long before liberals thought of it as a “cause celebre” and was embraced by President Obama early in his administration. They wanted to feel safe without stopping for a moment to think what they were giving up.
Torture. Thats the finer points of Constitutional law I’m not privy too… Does the Constitution mean US citizens or foreign nationals…? How about torture during other American Wars (civil) ww2 Vietnam… But I do know there is no reputable legal challenge to the policy. (I don’t know why) MC Cain is correct.
I criticize Obama because he (even for his record on deportations) he ignores the law as it suits him for political reasons and then tells Arizona that they are cutting off contact with the state and local officials when it comes to enforcing the nations own immigration policy.
One last statement.. I responded to your post because you said a posters comment was “partisan baloney.” If it is partisan baloney it only exists that way because the President made it that way.
It was “partisan baloney” because the poster made it that way.
Obama has not done as much as I had hoped in terms of reaching out to Republican moderates, although he did make some attempts early in his administration. And sometimes the president, who was such a good communicator during the campaign of ’08, has had a bit of a tin ear and has failed to communicate his ideas in a way that inspired the country.
But most of the intransigent partisanship, I believe, has come from the Republican right. Even before President Obama had done anything they were saying they wanted him to fail, and would do all they could to stop him from accomplishing anything.
The fail comment came after the stimulus and healthcare law passed without Republican support ( he didn’t need it remember) . That comment came in the run up to the 2010 elections… political speak…
Maybe it’s me, but I’m not understanding your point. “fail comment”? …?
“Even before President Obama had done anything they were saying they wanted him to fail” ~~~~ Penzance
No, the “fail” comment came in Obama’s very first month in office — Rush Limbaugh said he wanted the president to fail. That was before the Affordable Care Act was on the table.
Don’t pay attention to entertainers. Waste of good energy. I thought you were referring to McConnell’s comment.
The Republican faithful, like my nephew, an Assembly of God pastor, take Limbaugh very seriously.
Cheesecake, we agree that the Patriot Act has serious problems. We actually agree about some things!
In my experience, almost all conservatives were for the Patriot Act (it was pushed forward by Bush and Cheney of course), and while a few liberals opposed it for the reasons you and I are probably agreed on, many liberals caved in to conservative pressure and supported it so they wouldn’t look “weak” on terrorism. Some libertarians like Ron Paul joined with some courageous liberals to oppose it, but I didn’t know of any conservatives who opposed it.
Saying something does not make it so, no matter how many times you repeat it. It is simply untrue that President Bush violated the Constitution.
Cheesecake, just found out that Senator Marco Rubio’s grandfather entered the United States illegally. What were you saying about ignoring immigration laws?
He was eventually granted refugee status according to a report I just read. I’d run from Castros Cuba also.
But do not mistake my opposition to illegals and the Obama political machinations for opposition to immigration.
You accuse a politician of doing something political. Like when Romney switched his long-held position on abortion in order to get conservative votes in presidential primaries, or like when Lincoln delayed the Emancipation Proclamation until a politically better situation on the battlefield (after the Union victory at Antietam). A politician behaving politically — who ever heard of such a thing before now?
I just hope Mexico is as accepting of Americans if Obama is reelected and we are forced to go there looking for work.
Tag I am guessing you are not familiar with Mexico’s ZERO tolerance for illegals in there country. They SHOOT people in the southern parts of the country for being there illegally. They also put people in there country in there country illegally for indeterminate times.
In short the answer is no. While the Mexican government openly supports there citizens coming to the USA illegally they are quite the opposite with those who enter there country the same way.
Oh, so that’s how all of those Guatemalans and Nicaraguans go all the way through Mexico to cross our southern border. The Mexicans shoot them first. Then they travel the length of Mexico and walk across the Mexican border into Arizona, and eventually pick blueberries in Washington County, Maine. Pretty effective.
I have not read anything on this for awhile, but I recall about 5 years ago reports that the immigrants from further south are imprisoned sometimes for years. No one cares about crimes against them, that sort of thing. Besides Mexico’s southern border is pretty lawless and roving gang of drug runners, paramilitary groups, revolutionaries have more influence than the central government in that border region.
That’s probably correct.
Once in a while we can agree!
Sure SOME do. But the percentage who make it from south of Mexico to the US is minute compared to the percentage of those form Mexico who do. Of course the fact that the Mexican gov supports there citizens in efforts to get here is a whole other matter.
Secure our borders!! Every other country does it.
We have extremely long borders compared with most countries — and nations in Southern Europe like Italy and Spain are having trouble keeping North Africans from entering illegally — just as Thailand has trouble keeping Cambodians from entering illegally, and Chad has immigrants entering illegally from Sudan, etc.
“Every other country does it” (has secure borders) is simply NOT true.
This is a problem that presidents Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43 had, and did not solve — and both parties in Congress have been unable to do much. It’s not a simple problem, although many people want a simple answer.
One of the requirement for driving a vehicle is you must on demand of a LE show your license, registration and proof of insurance. Being that fully 90 plus percent of the people arrested for being illegal where driving whats the problem.
The issue is simple either you are for enforcing the LAW or your not. Remember to be here illegally you have to continue to commit crimes to stay. No ss number means you have to STEAL one to get anything. IF we can not even keep those who come here ILLEGALLY then why have laws at all?
Because we have to be tolerant of others, provide fairness and social justice for all, and not purvey hatred toward our undocumented guests, (tongue in cheek).
Unfortunately the right is as much to blame for this mess as is the left, for different reasons though.
Both the Democrats and Republicans have been unable to find a policy they can agree on a and get passed in Congress.
President Bush 43 put forward a reasonable and comprehensive immigration proposal, but got nowhere with either party. President Obama got the House to pass the (modest) DREAM Act, but although it probably has a majority in the Senate, they can’t get the 60 votes needed to break the filibuster to get it to the Senate floor for an up or down vote.
Both parties have been to blame, especially a few individuals in the Senate.
Arizona was frustrated by Congress’s inaction. I thought the Arizona law went too far, but I understand their frustration with the gridlock in D.C. The Supreme Court ruling probably struck a good balance.
Maybe the Dream Act is a good thing, maybe a bad. A decision was made for whatever reason not to pass it by the duly elected Congress. Obama’s choice to ignore Congress decision for purely political partisan reasons sets one group of Americans against another.
The DREAM Act did pass the House and probably would have passed the Senate if not for the continuous misuse of the filibuster by a few Senators.
But the issue that seems to be bothering you and many other right-wingers is that the president has said that he will not waste government resources trying to send back young people who are basically Americans in almost all ways — they speak English, grew up here, don’t remember ever living in any country but this one, did not choose to enter the country illegally, went to school here, went to college here or served honorably in the U.S. armed forces, and have obeyed the laws. Why waste energy sending them “back” to a country where they have no home and no memory of ever being there?
Obama has enforced the immigration laws better than either Bush ever did — he has received criticism from the left and from immigrant groups for his tough policies expelling more unauthorized immigrants than anyone has done before.
Why aren’t you criticizing the Republicans who never did such an effective job of enforcing our immigration laws? Oh, I know. Because they’re Republicans.
So Obama has been doing a better job of enforcing our immigration laws than anyone before him — and at the same time he chooses not to waste energy and resources pursuing one group of productive young Americans — and you say his get-tough enforcement of immigration law is the same as “ignoring” the law. That’s just baloney.
The point you seem to miss was that it did not pass. No matter the reason. Obama then decided he was going to do whatever he wanted. I don’t recall Clinton acting like Congress didn’t matter despite his conflicts with them.
As for ignoring the law perhaps you haven’t read anything about the retaliation that DHS just carried out on Arizona.
The point you seem to miss is that the Republicans were ignoring the will of Congress by not being tough in their enforcement of the immigration laws. President Obama has reversed that trend. Obama has done a BETTER job of enforcing the immigration laws Congress has passed than any Republican did, but you let the Republicans off the hook for failing to get tough on unauthorized immigrants. No other president has a tough record like Obama’s record of expelling unauthorized immigrants.
In this one situation — where young adults have grown up here, didn’t willfully enter the country illegally, speak English fluently, went to school here, obeyed our laws, went to college or served honorably in the U.S. armed forces — he is choosing to not waste resources pursuing those cases.
This is similar to the idea of a law enforcement agency going after drug distributors rather than wasting their time on the guy who has less than an ounce of marijuana. It makes sense sometimes to use your resources wisely, and go after the more important cases. Obama is going after the more important cases, and he is doing it better than any Republican ever did.
But you let them off the hook because, because, well, they’re Republicans. And you criticize Obama and ignore his “get tough” policy because, well, because he’s a Democrat.
Understand the plight of the neo citizens very well. They shouldn’t have to pay for the sins of their parents, but they’re still here illegally. I wish I could support the plan to give them student visas and work permits, but I’m concerned about the drain on an already bankrupt govt. that would have to pay for all that with OUR money. How is it fair to force hard working Americans to pay for validating illegal immigration?
You wrote, “I wish I could support the plan to give them student visas and work permits, but I’m concerned about the drain on an already bankrupt govt. that would have to pay for all that with OUR money.”
I don’t see how letting them work and pay income taxes, Social Security taxes, sales taxes, etc., costs us anything. We’re talking about young and mostly healthy people, eager to work, many of whom have served with honor in the U.S. armed forces, and all of whom call the United States “home.” They want to contribute. We should let them.
Agree with you Mgg. In most countries around the world (I live p/t in Ukraine) you need a passport to do almost everything “official”, like getting a job or even getting married. If you can’t prove you’re there legally you’re shown the gates. The US seems to be one of the few nations that simply ignore their own immigration laws by not requiring proof of legal residency before extending rights & benefits.
I sympathize with those who’ve come to the US to find work and live a better life, but we DO have laws for a reason.
Yes, that Ukranian idea of having to have a passport and official papers to do anyhing comes from when the Ukranian Soviet Socialist Republic was part of the old Soviet Union. Back then, all of your movements were heavily regulated, and you couldn’t travel to another part of your own country, let alone leave it, without having documents approved by Soviet bureaucrats.
I thought we were trying to avoind that kind of bureaucratic over-regulation.
I agree with you that Congress has failed to deal effectively with unauthorized immigration, although we should remember that during the Obama administration illegal entries into the U.S. are down, and deportations are way up. Obama has been tougher and more effective than any previous president enforcing our immigration laws.
Actually your first paragraph is mostly incorrect. In the now Former Soviet Union (FSU) citizens could for the most part travel freely within the USSR with only their National passport (different from the International version). The tales of restricted travel within the USSR is grossly exaggerated. International travel was watched more closely, but it was usually the destination country’s tourist travel restrictions that kept Soviet citizens from going where ever they wanted. ie: it was US immigration laws (and money of course) that prevented most Soviet citizens from traveling rather then the other way around and it’s still that way today. Any US citizen can come to Ukraine for 90 days as a tourist with no visa. Ukrainians, on the other hand must go through an exhaustive and expensive (for them) process at the US Consulate (including an in person interview) to get a visa to visit the US.
So doing it the legal way takes time and money, which is likely part of the reason for so many border jumpers in the South West. Why not simplify the entrance requirements so more immigrants can come in legally? We could potentially have far fewer illegals that way.
I’m surprised you are sticking up for the Soviet Union. I admit I never lived there, nor have I ever traveled there. But our press regularly reported that even internal travel in the old USSR was difficult — that you couldn’t just decide that you wanted to move from Kiev to Moscow, and then just do it. We were taught that you needed permission for that. But I moved from Michigan to Massachusetts, and Massachusetts to Illinois, and Illinois to Maine without asking anyone for permission.
I admit that I was never in the old Soviet Union, and I may be mistaken. Were you ever there in the Communist days, or only more recently?
We’re getting a bit OT here, but it is an interesting subject none the less. Travel was ok for the most part, but relocating required registering your address, proving ownership of the domicile or consent of the owners. A very cumbersome and frustrating method that sadly is still in use today. Of course if you were a “Party” member you could basically do whatever you wanted. The “common folk” faced more bureaucracy, but still were more free to do things than we were told by our own propaganda machine. My wife is a Ukrainian journalist so I’m in the know about how things were. Back then the govt. owner everything and corruption was rampant (still is) mostly because they only get paid about $200 a month. A hundred dollar handshake can still get things done (mostly get the staffers to do their jobs, but hey, Its Ukraine, as they say).
As for the topic and recent responses. I am not in favor of more bureaucracy or govt. intrusion, rather I’m simply in favor of proving you are a legal resident. A passport is just the thing I use the most these days. A DL is fine as long as proper proof of residency was used to obtain said DL. A piece of mail is convenient and I’ve used that in the past myself, but it still doesn’t prove one is a legal US Resident. Btw, if you’re a legal alien then you would have a passport and “green card” and we ARE talking about immigration here.
My whole point is, just prove you’re living in the US legally if you’re a foreigner. Thousands upon thousands of immigrants have entered the US and went through the immigration process to became citizens and legal residents. It certainly isn’t fair to them if we simply say to all the illegals, “its ok, even though you broke our laws you can still stay here.’
Pt 2
How is it bureaucratic over regulation to require folks to prove they’re legal residents do do things like, get a driver’s license, register to vote, get a job even get married and yes, to collect welfare. Just show proof that you’re here legally and you’re all set. Provide a proper birth cert, passport or Residence Permit and America is your oyster.
I belive (I could be wrong) that to register to vote — I moved from one towwn in Hancock County to another six years ago — all I had to provide was my driver’s license. They would also have accepted a piece of mail like an electric bill with my name and address on it. I didn’t need a passport, and shouldn’t need one. That would be bureaucratic overregulation. Oath_Keeper, you strike me as the kind of guy who would, in other situations, distrust government intrusion into our lives. Why are you for it this time?
The simple solution to prevent racial profiling is to require us all to carry our citizenship documents. A blast from the past. Remember the old propaganda films? ” Your papers, bitte!”
Horrors! Like voter ID.
In the early 1970’s the baby boomers decided to limit their number of births. My year, 1974 was the last year that the USA got most of its population increase from US citizens. In response to the reasonable policy of a generation, The government (always more interested in money than people) opened the floodgates to the “tired masses.” This group of immigrants were far more interested in earning cash than being “free”.
As the population increased (we now get 60% of our new population from immigration) the quality of life decreased. More people competing for limited resources means a lower quality of life for all. Carter opened the path from Cuba, and Castro dumped all his prisoners and mental defectives on the Florida shore.
Then in 1986, the congress “legitimized” the large number of people in the USA illegally. They said that they had to do this in order to stop future illegal immigration. The result was that illegal immigration increased ten-fold.
The right wing is semi pleased because illegals help them break unions and keep wages low. The left wing is pleased because they think we are all racists and we need “diversity”
I am left wondering why every culture on the planet deserves protection EXCEPT ours (or the one we used to have.)
The Federal Government maintains that THEY are the only entity which legally deals with illegal immigration. I have to ask; “Where’s the beef?” why do we have 20 million people within our borders who do not belong here?
Actually, the 1986 amnesty was supposed to be the quid for the quo in a comprehensive immigration solution. “Everyone here today is granted amnesty, but now we will have tough immigration laws and we’ll enforce them.” The first was easy to do, but there was (and is) no political will for the last two. This is why many of us, who are not unfeeling monsters, argue strongly against amnesty.
I happen to be an unfeeling monster, and I favor kicking EVERY illegal alien OUT.
I am not moved by the “Oh you are breaking up families” line. They made choices, and those choices have consequences. Out, Go home,
….and now Chinese are landing here illegally.
The situation with the Fed not doing it’s job will eventually be resolved by the States. Just because States failed to fix it once doesn’t mean they won’t try again.
Maybe this time we the people will win the Civil war that results.
So the BDN supports federalism. Big deal. What about the issue at hand?
The editors write:
“Arizona can’t make it a crime when people fail to carry identification papers because it replicates federal statutory requirements. The state can’t make it a crime for illegal immigrants to seek work because the federal law already imposes penalties on employers.
Further, the state can’t arrest a person suspected of being an illegal immigrant without a warrant because it would give state officers greater authority to arrest aliens than Congress has given to trained federal immigration officers.”
No mention by the BDN of the fundamental issue provoking Airzona to take action: the federal government refuses to do so. Why does the BDN fail to expand on this essential point? Because, like all liberal entities, it wants more illegals in this country so that when amnesty is ultimately provided, the Democratic Party roles will swell to permanent majority status, and we will go bankrupt providing all these new “citizens” when every entitlement in the book.
Conservatives and Republicans have it right – nations are defined by its laws and borders, and ilelgal immigration offends both.
Liberals and Democrats have it wrong – in a strong-arm attempt to build its voter base, it is ignoring the Constitution and the proper responsibilities of the federal government. Disgusting.