From the actual court decision? You are mistaken if you believe that the AZ law as passed is equivalent to the federal immigration law. It’s not, and that’s the bone of contention that you seem unwilling to address.
The AZ law is not a ‘carbon copy’ of the federal immigration law. The parts that were not found in the federal law were dismissed. The part that was, was upheld.
You couldn't be more wrong. I know Kris Kobach who drafted the law and have discussed it with him. The issue involved here in preemption and the impact of the Supremacy clause in the Constitution. Nothing in the AZ law is against federal law. The states are either entitites with rights as specified in the 9th and 10th Amendments or they are just administrative units of the federal government.
The Federal goverment is limited to enumerated powers. The states have rights as well, including enforcing federal immigration law. The AZ law does not violate or conflict with any federal laws. In virtually every aspect, AZ mirrors federal law.
And what does that have to do with SCOTUS? Nothing. That has to do with Napolitano and the Obama administration.
It has a lot to do with SCOTUS and the rationale used to justify the majority decision if you have read it. States have a role in enforcing federal immigration law. Immigration is not the sole province of the federal government. The states bear most of the costs of illegal immigration whether it is education, law enforcement, or welfare. The federal government is not doing its job. The 287(g) program was supposed to leverage state, local, and federal law enforcment resources. There are only 7,000 ICE agents. We have 12 to 20 million illegal aliens in this country. There are an estimated 2 million criminal aliens.
Which is contrary to this SCOTUS ruling. Obama’s said he’s going to ‘selectively enforce the law’ which violates the equal protection clause. Arizona has standing now to sue the Feds for selective enforcement. Obama can’t simply ignore the cases it doesn’t want to deal with - it has to deal with any and all reports of illegal immigrants that are caught.
Obama has been violating federal law with impunity. He started a back door amnesty involving 300,000 immigration cases. This was before the Dream Act. In 2010 and 2011 the Border Patrol union issued unanimously a no-confidence edict against Morton and his deputy. Why?
"This action reflects the growing dissatisfaction and concern among ICE employees and Union leaders that Director John Morton and Assistant Director Phyllis Coven have abandoned the Agency's core mission of enforcing United States Immigration Laws and providing for public safety, and have instead directed their attention to campaigning for programs and policies related to amnesty and the creation of a special detention system for foreign nationals that exceeds the care and services provided to most United States citizens similarly incarcerated.
It is the desire of our union within ICE and our employees to publicly separate ourselves from the actions of Director Morton and Assistant Director Coven and publicly state that ICE officers and employees do not SUppOI1 Morton or Coven, or their misguided and reckless initiatives, which could ultimately put many in America at risk.
So who is going to hold Obama accountable? Certainly not Congress.
Scalia wrote a first class dissent. I suggest you read it in its entirety. What was weak was the majority opinion. It is frightening. Our Constitution is being shredded and we have idiots defending it. If the same thing happens with Obamacare, you can kiss the Constitution good-bye. There is nothing the federal government can't do. There is no Rule of Law.
“You couldn’t be more wrong. I know Kris Kobach who drafted the law and have discussed it with him. The issue involved here in preemption and the impact of the Supremacy clause in the Constitution. Nothing in the AZ law is against federal law. The states are either entitites with rights as specified in the 9th and 10th Amendments or they are just administrative units of the federal government.”
Couple things here.
If Kris Kobach was so careful, why’s he getting hit up on ticky tack stuff like criminal charges vs civil? Was he not aware of the present federal immigration laws when he drafted the legislation? Or did he just not care?
Two, 10th applies to powers not enumerated of the federal government. Immigration has always been the federal purview and the constitution provides them with the power to regulate immigration into America.
The states have never had the authority to control immigration into their state. Not before the Civil war, nor after. It has always been a federal concern.
“The AZ law does not violate or conflict with any federal laws.”
Yes it does. Which is why most of this particular law was struck down. All the parts in conflict with federal law are gone now.
“It has a lot to do with SCOTUS and the rationale used to justify the majority decision if you have read it.”
SCOTUS isn’t responsible for Napolitano. You’re conflating two different things here.
“States have a role in enforcing federal immigration law.”
And their role is to enforce the federal immigration law as it stands, not to make it more stringent and enforce their own law.
“The states bear most of the costs of illegal immigration whether it is education, law enforcement, or welfare.”
Yes, and I don’t see a constitutional requirement for either state control of education or welfare. If a state is finding welfare and education burdonsome, then they ought to revert to constitutional rather than unconstitutional governance.
“The federal government is not doing its job.”
Agreed, wholeheartedly. Now, the onus is on the federal government, since this ruling has established that it is their reponsibility, not the states. If Obama fails to enforce federal law, then that is a proper rationale for impeachment.
“The 287(g) program was supposed to leverage state, local, and federal law enforcment resources. There are only 7,000 ICE agents. We have 12 to 20 million illegal aliens in this country. There are an estimated 2 million criminal aliens.”
I understand. Obama figures he can win this by cutting AZ off of the resources for which they are entitled to enforce the laws. I guess my question is what is AZ going to do about it? Are they going to sit and twiddle their thumbs until Obama leaves? Or are they going to continue to fight?
“Obama has been violating federal law with impunity. He started a back door amnesty involving 300,000 immigration cases. This was before the Dream Act. In 2010 and 2011 the Border Patrol union issued unanimously a no-confidence edict against Morton and his deputy. Why?”
Because he doesn’t believe in the constitution and believes that he can destroy the American republic. He’s succeeding pretty well so far. He’s managed to earn a successful re-election, and in all likelihood, some modified form of Obamacare.
The thing everyone should have been concerned about was back last February where we were choosing the man who was supposed to fight Obama. Romney is the pick, and we all know he’s soft on immigration enforcement, supported Obamacare, etc.
I don’t really see the point in either candidate to protect the freedoms of Americans.
“So who is going to hold Obama accountable? Certainly not Congress.”
That’s the job of congress, is it not? Checks and balances.
“Scalia wrote a first class dissent.”
I’ve seen him write some really first class ones. This was not one of them. Lawrence vs Texas was prescient, you read that today and you get a sense that there were 11 men on the bench and Scalia who saw what was really going on.