E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe Supreme Court of the United States has agreed to hear arguments over Arizona's immigration law. NBC's Pete Williams reports.
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court agreed to rule on Arizona's controversial law intended to curb illegal immigration NBC's Pete Williams reports. Its ruling will affect tougher enforcement plans in other states.
The justices said they will review a federal appeals court ruling that blocked several tough provisions in the Arizona law. One of those requires that police, while enforcing other laws, question a person's immigration status if officers suspect he is in the country illegally.
The Obama administration challenged the Arizona law by arguing that regulating immigration is the job of the federal government, not states. Similar laws in Alabama, South Carolina and Utah also are facing administration lawsuits. Private groups are suing over immigration measures adopted in Georgia and Indiana.
The court now has three politically charged cases on its election-year calendar. The other two are President Barack Obama's health care overhaul and new electoral maps for Texas' legislature and congressional delegation. Justice Elena Kagan will not take part in the Arizona case, presumably because of her work on the issue when she served in the Justice Department.
The immigration case stems from the administration's furious legal fight against a patchwork of state laws targeting illegal immigrants. Arizona wants the justices to allow the state to begin enforcing measures that have been blocked by lower courts at the administration's request.
The state says that the federal government isn't doing enough to address illegal immigration and that border states are suffering disproportionately. In urging the court to hear the immigration case, Arizona says the administration's contention that states "are powerless to use their own resources to enforce federal immigration standards without the express blessing of the federal executive goes to the heart of our nation's system of dual sovereignty and cooperative federalism."
Many other state and local governments have taken steps aimed at reducing the effects of illegal immigration, the state says. But the administration argues that the various legal challenges making their way through the system provide a reason to wait and see how other courts rule.
In April, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld a federal judge's ruling halting enforcement of several provisions of Arizona's S.B. 1070. Among the blocked 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 a warrant.
In October, the federal appeals court in Atlanta blocked parts of the Alabama law that forced public schools to check the immigration status of students and allowed police to file criminal charges against people who are unable to prove their citizenship.
Lawsuits in South Carolina and Utah are not as far along.
Leave a Comment:
"The Obama administration challenged the Arizona law by arguing that regulating immigration is the job of the federal government, not states."
What the Obama administration meant to say is that declining to regulate immigration is the privilege of a liberal President.
Liberal? My arse. There is no such thing as a liberal politician, just people that fleece us in the name of liberalism.
How can you support the single most thing that keeps our workers down and claim to be concerned for them?
WOW Double Wow; If there was no problem with Justice shooting down Arizona, they would have just let the Appeals court decision stand; look for a reversal , saying Law enforcement, at all levels have a right to determine who they have in custody, including legal status to be in the United States;
As it was the right of the previous 3 republican presidents. Including your presumably beloved Reagan who signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 which gave amnesty to 3m illegals.
tom
obama has deported more than your last wonder boy did. Try again.
Again Republicants utilize their opinions as facts. Simply stated the Obama Administration has deported more illegals in it's time than George W did in his. End of discussion.
Tom, like it or not it's a Federal vs State issue. You do not have to like the president or his politics, but Republican presidents have done the same (not enforcing immigration laws). It's nice to see the Supreme Court finally doing it's job.
I know it's hard, but let's put politics aside and hope the court rule on this fairly. I will leave what fairly mean up to each individual. Either way the court will or should have the final say.
Yeah, deporting people is the same as amnesty according to the Republicans, but only if a liberal President does it.
Otherwise the President doesn't have to do anything with regard to illegal immigration and no one will care.
flnobody & Ray-402,
Sine there are somewhere between 11 and 20 Million (depending on who's figures you use) Illegal Aliens in the country, they are no where near finished. It looks like the current administration has a LOT more work to do . End of discussion.
Please look at the people Obama has deported.
They are Illegal Criminals who were already going to be shiped home. You know the people law enforcement and the judicial system have already caught.
Let's see how they rule on this.............interesting...........
Americans across the political spectrum (including Democrats like me) demand that our government enforce our immigration laws. If the federal government refuses to require compliance with its own laws, the states must, as they cannot afford the continue deterioration caused by the catastrophic costs of ILLEGAL immigration.
Stop this insanity! A GOVERNMENT WHICH REFUSES TO ENFORCE ITS OWN LAWS IS INTOLERABLE!
I pay over 2,500 a year in public education to my local schools and now the FED says illegal gets to spend my money to eductate thier achor babies.
Glad to see this, it will hopefully put things back the way they were in previous decades when police in all the US routinely checked immigration status of people they stopped for other reasons.
Good for Justice Elena Kagan, that she is recusing herself. The honorable thing to do under the circumstances.
Lastly for those who claim Obama has deported more than Bush. Hmmm, if you let 1 million in because of lack enforcement and send 10,000 back, you aren't getting very far and the numbers used by this administration include the 400,000 adjudicated for deportation that Obama and His Homeland Security person stopped. Being adjudicated but still here doesn't count!
flnobody, Obama hasn't come close to deporting as many as the last president did. Get a clue- thats typical libtard rhetoric.
Arizona and other states must do what the federal government will not do. That means the Obama government because he is soft on illegals.
2012 will be when we get his ass out of the White House and take our country back from you libtards.
Randy,
What's the difference? With school of choice your tax dollars educate a lot more than just illegal kids for free.
Get used to it America is a country that has stripped the meaning of personal responsibility from our landscape.
This is all about Democrat pandering to Hispanic Americans to get the Hispanic vote, without regard to the best interests of the United States as a whole. Especially in the long run.
Here is hoping the lefty loons crash & burn on this.
Congress has not preempted state or local action regarding any of the federal laws that the new Arizona law seeks to enforce, so long as the state law goes no further than existing federal law. The Arizona law was drafted meticulously to ensure that it complies fully with the U.S. Constitution and with federal immigration laws.
This is a state vs federal case. So remember republicans, that this will certainly have consequences that you will not like. It's not about just immigration. I'm clearly a liberal, but I don't have a problem with states making these decisions. Let the red states turn into Alabama and Mississippi.
arealpatriot, you might want your facts. Obama has in fact deported more illegals in 3 years than Bush did in both terms. Go do a little reading.
A few of the CURRENT Federal Laws not being enforce by the Obama goons.
In immigration matters, the courts have consistently held that this means that states may enact immigration-related laws that go as far as, but no further than, duly enacted federal laws, except in areas where Congress has specifically preempted state action.
EXPOSE THE LIARS
The SC ruling, either way, will expose the liars. Who is "deeply concerned" about illegal immigration and who could "give a rats"? This is not as simple as the parties like to make it out to be -- vested interests on both sides.
Republican Duplicity: The gun toting NRA hunter who has had enough is joined at the hip to Big Agri (also Republican) who likes, loves, and actively promotes illegal immigration.
Democrat Duplicity: The union guy (traditional Democrat), fighting for a working wage is joined at the hip to the Democratic Hispanic Community (also Democrat) -- one side knows that illegals erode wages, the other side wants them in.
Liars, hypocrits, and complexities -- oh my ! ! !
Neither party will do a damn thing about illegal immigration....prepare to not be represented.
Work-site Raids have dropped 70% under Obama's lack of enforcement.
All those jobs held by illegal aliens could be done by U.S. citizens.
Well @!$%#, guys, if you don't like your laws getting struck down, try writing them so they don't violate the US Constitution. I know it's hard, but it's not that hard.
This is such a farce. Meanwhile TX does THIS:
The U.S. is proposing its first unmanned border crossing with Mexico in a remote stretch of West Texas.
Federal officials tout the port of entry in Big Bend National Park as a security upgrade, noting that wading across the shallow Rio Grande undetected is all too easy.
By the spring, kiosks could open up allowing people from the tiny Mexican town of Boquillas del Carmen to scan their identity documents and talk to a customs officer in another location, at least 100 miles away.
Authorities say extra Border Patrol agents would be stationed in the park if the crossing is approved. The estimated $2.3 million project has support from both countries.
NOW you tell me....how do YOU think the Supreme Court is going to rule.... 2.3 MILLION dollars just to allow easier access. lol..the fokers
states dont have the jurisdiction to enforce immigration laws. end of dicussion. whether some states suffer more than other because of federal laws or policies is absolutely irrelevant. one could probably go down whole list of federal laws, policies, regulations, etc. and claim that they affect some states more than others.
furthermore, requiring foreigners to carry evidence of the legal status or immediately arrest them is unreasonable. i am a naturalized citizen and i dont carry my certificate of citizenship, just the same way every native born doesnt carry their birth certificate.
in addition, there are dozens of different types of visas, all with different stay length and different conditions and that authorize foreigners to do different things. state authorities are not trained to know the difference between them. how are they suppose to enforce it? if you want an example of what i am talking about, read this article. arizona police detained and wanted to deport a puerto rican, who has every right to be in the continental US, to mexico. and SB1070 wasnt even in effect yet. does this give you an insight about how important it is to be properly trained for law enforcement??
That's what I call a catch-22, Greg Parker 626855.
Imagine paying 3X as much for produce because laws against undocumented labor began being enforced. And big Agri now had to pay a lazy unionized American $30/Hr plus benefits to pick apples and oranges.....( I would clear the woods on my property and have a much bigger garden...)
Unionized labor is joined at the hip with illegal immigrants, career welfare recipients, Enviro-wakos, rehab over punishment for crime, legal discrimination ,..er,...I mean affirmative action,.....Yikes!
Well I still say the same thing time and time again. ALL politicians, regardless of party, are a bunch of big fat liars. They all say they are going to crack down on illegal immigraton and then they don't. Not only do they NOT do anything, they turn around and override the laws. They wanted Alabama to "look the other way". If you are not here documented and with permission, you are breaking the law and should be punished.
Everyday people complain about the job situation and how tough it is to get a job. Well guess what people? Look to your right or left and see who is screwing you. Our own people are screwing us out of jobs. The jobs they give to illegals could be yours. Why don't they give them to you? Because you actually have to work for more than 6.50 per hour. Since illegals are undocumented they don't have to pay min wage. They hire them at half what they would really have to pay and save themselves the bucks, all the while screwing you and your family. All these bleeding hearts should have to experience that and then see what they think. Food for their family or give an illegal a job??? If they were losing their home, car, being bankrupt, I wonder if they would see it differently.
Send them and their brood home, wherever they came from, and crack down on it. I'm highly disappointed in Americans. We are ruining our own wonderful country fro the almighty dollar. Shame on those who do this to the hard working Americans trying to survive. You are a disgrace.
I see the republicans liars are at work again. Here are the facts.
Deportations are up 70% under Obama. Look at the politifact review.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/11/barack-obama/obama-says-deportation-criminals-70-percent-under-/
I see both parties at work again. Defending their party for no reason at all.
Both are corrupt, both are only interested in personal advancement, and both are nothing less than hypocrites.
Can I see the hands of those that are prepared to pay more (2-3 times) for produce at the supermarkets?
Can I also see the hands of those that are willing to go out and pick the produce at minimum wage as well as maintain their yards and lawn (assuming you hire someone to do it for you already)?
Yeah, that's what I thought.
We all want tougher immigration laws but we don't want the consequences of it. We really need to think through these issues before we take one side or another. What you see isn't always what you get or want.
doesn't take a rocket scientist to see this coming..the Higher Order Loves Cheap Labor & driving Lower Class Americans to desperation, filling penal institutions and seeking social assistance..WE'VE become such A Monster, i wonder if We'll Ever become; Virtuous WE ONCE WERE..okay, some will say, WE NEVER WERE..i believe there was A time; when we ALL pulled together..Now it's ALL about A; PRICE TO PAY..When will WE Learn, Life is More than just That..they Got Everyone Cornered, just where they want them..the proof is in the pudding, Look & SEE Everyday People; STRUGGLING..We want to Care for the WORLD, but WE forget about OUR OWN...WHAT A DIRTY SHAME !!!.....
Ray 402 and Eric...the deportations may be up, but the perpetrators keep coming back over and over again. Here in AZ there is still a huge problem with drop houses and of course the on-going issue with drugs/cartels...also, the illegal immigration problem also includes identity theft and stolen SS numbers. Thank God for our local law enforcement and our human smuggling laws as well as raids on companies that are hiring illegals.
For everyone saying that Obama isn't doing something to crack down on illegals and illegal immigration, see this clip from an Assocoaited press article::
A system that housed 6,785 immigrants in 1994 now holds nearly five times that amount in 260 facilities across the country, most under contract with local governments or private companies. For this fiscal year, ICE has enough money budgeted for 33,400 people on any given night.
Jeremy said:
They are Illegal Criminals who were already going to be shiped home. You know the people law enforcement and the judicial system have already caught.
Please see the clip below:
An official Immigration and Customs Enforcement database, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, showed a U.S. detainee population of exactly 32,000 on the evening of Jan. 25.
The data show that 18,690 immigrants had no criminal conviction, not even for illegal entry or low-level crimes like trespassing. More than 400 of those with no criminal record had been incarcerated for at least a year. A dozen had been held for three years or more; one man from China had been locked up for more than five years. Nearly 10,000 had been in custody longer than 31 days -- the average detention stay that ICE cites as evidence of its effective detention management.
Based on a 2001 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, ICE has about six months to deport or release immigrants after their case is decided. But immigration lawyers say that deadline is routinely missed. In the system snapshot provided to the AP, 950 people were in that category.
Immigration lawyers note that substantial numbers of detainees, from 177 countries in the data provided, are not illegal immigrants at all. Many of the longest-term non-criminal detainees are asylum seekers fighting to stay here because they fear being killed in their home country. Others are longtime residents who may be eligible to stay under other criteria, or whose applications for permanent residency were lost or mishandled.
And US citizens and legal immigrants are being caught up in this 'deport everyone' mentality.
Hans Joachim Keil was arrested in Dutton in September and accused of being an illegal alien. He was an official representative of Samoa, a current Member of Parliament and a prominent businessman with many family links. He had diverted to Missouri on the way home from trade talks in Brussels where he represented Samoa. “They were going to lock me up for five years plus five years. Five years for impersonating a US citizen and five years for using an illegal US passport. They said that I’m an illegal alien and I have no right to be in the United States. They knew I was a Samoan diplomat but they had no regard for my diplomatic passport.”
Rennison Castillo, a Washington state man who was born in Belize but took his oath of citizenship while serving in the U.S. Army in 1998, spent seven months in an ICE prison in 2006. Castillo, 33, of Lakewood, came to the United States at age 6 and later became a permanent lawful resident. He was sworn in as a citizen during his seven-year stint in the Army, which ended with his honorable discharge in 2003.
And ICE is continuing to hold people in detention even after they have proved they are citizens:
The son of a decorated Vietnam veteran, Hector Veloz is a U.S. citizen, but in 2007 immigration officials mistook him for an illegal immigrant and locked him in an Arizona prison for 13 months. Veloz had to prove his citizenship from behind bars. An aunt helped him track down his father's birth certificate and his own, his parents' marriage certificate, his father's school, military and Social Security records. After nine months, a judge determined that he was a citizen, but immigration authorities appealed the decision. He was detained for five more months before he found legal help and a judge ordered his case dropped.
Mr. Ibarra, 46, was born in Mexico but was raised since infancy in Arizona. In his late 20s he enlisted in the Marines and served three years on active duty, including time in Iraq, before being honorably discharged. On February 23, 2011 Department of Justice adjudicator Richard Phelps ruled in Eloy, Arizona that George Ibarra had by a preponderance of the evidence proven that he is indeed a citizen of the United States. Rather than apologize to Mr. Ibarra for previously wrongfully detaining him, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is holding Mr. Ibarra in solitary confinement at the Eloy Detention Center, in clear violation of the U.S. Constitution and a memorandum requiring Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to release anyone with "probative evidence" of U.S. citizenship.
Good! It's time to find out if States can enforce Federal Laws the Federal Government isn't willing to enforce!
Deport them all, If our federal government refuse do their job then we American citizens will. The supreme Court is a joke. Keep up the games and there will be revolution!!!
Ronald Reagan had the good sense to decry what he referred to as "anti-immigrant hysteria".
He succeeded in getting citizenship for only about half of the Americans he wanted to give it to, because of opposition from bigoted politicians on both sides of teh aisle. And to even get that much, he had to agree to idiotic rules written into IRCA, like making 'working' and 'job creation' crimes, imposing quotas on the numbers of people who could apply for citizenship based on ethnicity (bigotry hidden as "regional" quotas), quotas on who could be hired (as though politicians know more about a company's business than the company does).
EVERYONE agrees that the "amnesty" portion of the program worked. Not even the biggest, most virulent bigot on Newsvine ever complains that the people who gained citizenship are a problem.
But NOBODY believes that the 'enorcement only' and bigoted quota system works. THAT'S why we have anauthorized immigration. Make immigration allowable, for EVERYONE who gets a job, and there will be no unauthorized Americans, and the number of people coming here WILL NOT CHANGE.
What is it about Free Market Economics that the haters don't understand?
What is it about the Constitution that the haters don't understand? (And thanks to Toasty, for once again pointing out that the Constitution is, and must always remain, the bedrock of all law in the United States of America).
To all of you who spout off, "deportations are up" If you have 100 illegal aliens in the US and you deport 10, you have deported 10% If you have 21 MILLION and you deport 300,000, you have deported 7% There are more here as our borders are like a bucket with a screen for the bottom. It may slow down the flow of water a little, but it will never hold water. When you have 25,000 being caught per month when there are over 100,000 a month coming across, you arent winning!!! Its like Obamanomics. You can tell me all you want how well Obumer is doing but the fact is. he is spending more than he is bringing in, he is catching fewer than are coming in. You are seeing the Titanic here. its going down, its just a matter of when.
As for his whole tax the rich plan, how much do you plan on taxing these 3 million people? Charge them an extra MILLION dollars apiece and you still havent come up with the 1.4 TRILLION dollar deficit the Mesiah has saddled us with just this year.
The legal question is NOT may the State enact laws to determine the legal status under federal law; the issue is may a State enact a state law to determine who is residing in that state; we have State laws on determining who has a criminal record, who was born in that state, registration of sex offenders, birth place of all persons seeking any state funded assistance, including public schools, medicaid, medicare,employment in the public sector, voter registration, application for assistance (food, housing,transportation); what is so wrong about asking a person if they are a legal resident.
Exccept that SB 1070 makes no attempt to "enforce federal law." It is a bold attempt to usurp power, bypass the Constitution, deny due process, and persecute brown people, all so that the Corrections Corporation of America can get rich at taxpayer expense.
I'm so sick of hearing the argument that "Well your president didn't do enough about illegal immigration, so shut up about mine".
Why is, "Well he didn't screw up as bad as somebody else that screwed up really bad", even an excuse? If we continue to compare people to the bottom of the barrel to make them look good we're going to continue getting the crap that we've always gotten.
The fact is, the border has never been secure. The government has failed to punish business that hire illegals enough to make them stop. And we've failed to deport enough of the ones we catch. ("enough" being all)
Right now Obama is the one that is utterly failing to do enough about illegal immigration. And worse than that. He's trying to prevent the states from picking up his slack.
When he is replace we will yell, at his replacement to do something about it. I doubt they will. But we can hope.
It defies all logic why the right wing nuts keep trying to blame this on Obama.
1) This situation exists because Reagan gave 4 million illegal immitrants unconditional amnesty and another 8 or so million "conditional amnesty." This created an expectation that if you came here, worked hard, and kept your nose clean that you would be allowed to stay. Reagan did this because the GOP wanted to cash in on the emerging legal Latino vote. (Illegals do NOT vote.) It didn't work.
2) So far the Obama administration has deported more illegal immigrants than the the entire eight years of GW Bush plus 4 years of GHW Bush and then some. On an annulized basis 2010 was 170% of the record year (2009) and 2011 is already waaaaay past 2010.
3) The recent "cessation" of deportation for certain people was done because right wing religious nuts decided it was a good idea to "out" members of the U.S. military who are illegal immigrants or are married to illegal immigrants --- a six digit number that the military cannot afford to lose. The only people not being deported are those in college with a 3.0 or better GPA, members of the military, spouses of members of the military, people whose residency paperwork has been submitted but not yet ruled on, and a handful (less than 10 so far) whose "community roots" are so deep that it would be inhumane (this latter group is primarily people who came here as infants and only speak English.) And even these people are not on a path to citizenship --- they are considered "stateless" persons with temporary residency and a green card to allow them to work.
4) I live in Tuscaloosa (Roll Tide) and the Alabama immigration law is a disaster. So far the biggest arrests have been a German executive from Mercedes who left his passport in his hotel room and a Japanese executive who had an international drivers' license that is not recognized by the new law. The Chinese government which had proposed building an autopmobile plant here is "reconsidering." State tax collections lost because of the flight of illegal and legal immigrants already exceed $100-$120 million a year. Losses to local governments from closure of Latino businesses and loss of taxes is estimated at around $200 million and losses to farmers and farm transportation is estimated at another $400 million a year. The state is now trying to figure out what to cut to make up for the losses and the most likely at this point is to cut ALL senior services programs completely. A property tax increase in many localities is being studied. The Tuscaloosa school systems have lost millions because of Latino student absenses and flight, almost certainly causing future teacher layoffs. Good work idiots!
5) And the idea that "work-site raids" have declined by 70% is pure Glen Beck BS. Work site raids are way up, as are fines and the use by employers of eVerify and other status verification tools. That is just knowing GOP lies thrown like bones to stupid dogs to keep them quiet. Work site raids have been predicted to decrease in the future by as much as 50% because under the Obama administration repeat offenders get automatic minimum penalties and the federal and state governments are now forbidden to refund the employers contribution to Sopcial Security and Workman's Comp premiums. Previously under GW Bush when a company like Armour Meats was raided and fined these "refunds" more than covered the fines. No more.
6) There is zero possibilty that Americans will step up and take the farm labor jobs that immigrants were doing. The reason is that state and local governments, often using the guise of keeping kids in school, set up a huge network of laws aimed at keeping migrant workers away from their towns. These laws were aimed at the dust bowl internal refugees (read "Grapes of Wrath") and are still on the books. Alabama, for example can put you in prison for 10 years if your kid misses more than 5 school days in a year.
7) One little example of how stupid the idiots that wrote the Alabama law are: The law says that you must carry your "green card" with you. The green card says on it that you should keep it in a safe place and never carry it around with you.
Immigration has become a kind of intelligence test for many. When I hear the people spewing hatred toward illegal immigrants and blaming Obama and claiming that nothing is being done, I know that they are either so misinformed, ignorant, deceitful, or stupid that they have no idea of reality. Trying to discuss anything with them is a waste of time. They simply do not have the capacity to understand even simple issues.
And remember, lack of social conscience is a character flaw, not something to be proud of.
One group of the right wingnuts is crying about the illegals and at the same time extreme right winger Rupert Murdoch is running editorials in his Wall St Journal about how we need the illegals to get the job done and how the illegals do a better job that Americans because the Americans are all lazy and entitlement makes them think they are owed higher wages. The right needs to stop talking out of both sides of it's mouth at the same time. Look at this article from Bloomberg Business Week just earlier this year:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/how-to-be-a-patriot-hire-an-illegal-immigrant-07072011.html
Because he is the president now. It's his responsibility. If we continue to use the fact that,"others have failed", to give the current president a free pass, then we'll never get anything done. When Bush was president, he failed. Clinton failed. Reagan failed. And Obama is failing.
We don't grade on a curve for the president. We grade on an absolute scale. Maybe Obama has done twice as well when it comes to illegal immigration as he predecessors. But they all got 5%, so he gets 10% at best. That's a long ways from even a D.
Common Sense:
Can you point out one, just one part of the law that says "brown", "mexican", "hispanic", or ANY word, or term that describes, or states ANY nationality of people?
Stop playing the race game. The law is NOT racist. It simply states that we, as a state, reserve the right to help our federal government in enforcing the law that they state they cant enforce.
Immigration, and amnesty, are two ENTIRELY different issues. If your water main breaks, what do you do first? Get a bucket and a mop to clean up, or turn off the water main? Same with the border, secure it FIRST, worry about what to do with the illegal aliens second. Not the other way around. Reagen found that out with Amnesty when the government did not seal the border as promised.
... Just so you know. Neither the right or the left are made up of a single consciousness. They're actually large groups of individuals. And person that claims to speak for the whole of one side or the other is an idiot. And a person that assumes that one person in a group saying something than a different person in that group means that group is collectively a liar is just as much of an idiot.
How about making it mandatory to work for your welfare. People could pick crops to recieve welfare. If they don't like that, they can get other jobs and stop mooching off of the rest of us. We don't need any more illegal aliens in this country. We have over 20 million now and they send 31 billion a year to their families in Mexico and countries in Central and South America. It would be nice to have that 31 billion stay in the USA and stimulate our economy. There are also the billions that are wasted on illegals in our schools, hospitals and prisons. Illegal aliens are criminals, that's what ILLEGAL means.
But your lengthy 'logic' flies in the face of American immigration laws that are not outside the bounds of reason (and not unlike the immigration laws of numerous other countries) - so it isn't a stretch to have the one we have, no matter what administration over-reaches its legal standing to do so or what person or persons determine not to follow it, at their legal peril. That said, it is not that the law is flawed or immoral, but rather if it is not followed, no matter if the act of ignoring the law is seen by some as empathetic and compassionate or manipulative and self-serving, greedy, gratuitous or benevolent, it is not negated. Changes to laws go through judicial process. If one chooses to ignore the law, the law still remains unless or until it is lawfully changed, altered, modified, replaced or removed by the American People. If not following the law is what you propose, or wish to defend, you cannot call other citizens a stream of contemptuous names (propaganda) as if their position were somehow unlawful. Well, actually, you can call people names, but then your argument that their character is somehow flawed is not only invalid but speaks to your own hypocrasy.
Arizona wants the justices to allow the state to begin enforcing measures that have been blocked by lower courts at the administration's request.
Just Say Obama paying for votes with our money.
When the other countries finally own America, the leftys are going to cry " We are on your side, remember Obama"
The list is long. anyting American they want to get rid of. What Bedfellows, next year it will be Santa that has to go.
If I was going to screw America over, I would have to come in as a Democrat to surely get the votes.
I'm afraid that the Leftists are in for a disappointment when the SCOTUS ruling comes down.
Elena Kagan will likely have to recuse herself due to her time as Obama's Solicitor General. I know the Lefties are saying that Clarence Thomas should recuse himself, as well. But the truth is that there's no precedent for recusal of a Justice based on the opinions or actions of a family member.
Another point is that the order of the lower court judge was upheld by the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco. The 9th Circuit is the worst collection of wacked-out liberal loons in the country.
There are 13 Federal Circuit Appeals Courts. Of cases from ALL of the Appeals Courts that are reviewed by the Supreme Court, the combined percentage of cases overturned is around 10%. The percentage of 9th District cases overturned is around 75%.
Chris-749391,
#1.43
That was the best post I've seen in this thread...so good in fact I'm going to re-post it on my website as an example of rational thought on immigration.
Thanks for being that all too rare commodity these days, a thinker.
arealpatriot, you're suspended for a day for violating #1 of the Code of Honor. Don't do this. You know the rules.
Do you really think them dumb a## illegal’s are still going to work for under minimum wage if they get amnesty??? Do you really think it will be legal to hire them for less?
Yes I will pay for higher produce but they are already fleecing us now. They call it higher gas hike so they up the prices and put the crap in smaller bags.
Let’s call a spade a spade. As soon as they get amnesty they are legal, they get to demand minimum wage and it’s still a lose, lose situation. Plus we will be paying even more for food stamps and government assistance because then they will be legal and will be able to get everything.
Send them back now. I for one am tired of it and don’t want to pay for a bunch off illegals on food stamps etc…
libtards doesn't seem so bad after what they call us conservatives.
Anyone against LEGAL immigrants having to cary ID, has obviously never visited foreign countrys where it is highly advised that you cary your Passport ( YOUR PAPERS) with you at all times, just to be a visitor. And you have a choice in those countrys, Show your Passport or leave. So if you have no problem using a passport to travel you should have no problem with immigrants having ID with them.
Radical 1--ABSOLUTELY. I have visited (in the last 2 years) Greece, Spain, Mexico, and am headed to Costa Rica in January, and France and possibly Hungary in the late spring.
You BET I have to have MY documents with me. And with medium skin, and dark hair, I could pass in appearance for being a citizen of those countries.
And BTW--most of what AZ wants to be able to enforce is MEXICAN law, too. Just TRY to immigrate to Mexico, to become a citizen or even just live there and see what hoops THEY have.
Per the link below, the cost of deporting, per individual, is $12,500. This is from a CBS story quoting a Federal Immigration official.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/feds-estimate-deportation-costs-12500-person
So...since there are 11 million or more illegals here...
12,500 X 11,000,000 = 137 Billion dollars.
That's a huge chunk of change to spend on a RECURRING problem. Until we can close our borders and KEEP THEM CLOSED, deportation is a waste of money on such a massive scale. I'm not suggesting we stop deporting but only that we focus more on the ones who commit serious crimes like murder, rape, drug trafficking, etc... and not so much on those that just work and eke out a living.
Personally, it seems more logical to find a way to integrate rather than deport. More cost effective and less disruptive to farming, agriculture, and construction industries.
There is always more than one way to skin a cat.... the government is not going to do anything about the illegals as they need the votes. But.. we CAN do something against those Americans that are employing those illegals! The laws are in place ENFORCE THEM! It has been proven, no jobs, they go home on their own. Then WE get to vote....
We need to match the punishment for illegals to the country they came from. Or just make it a death penalty across the board.
I would much rather have illegals around me than the trashy people who take advantage of them by using them for sex and what have you..On the other hand I want to be free to travel to Mexico or South America without being abducted..Crazy circumstances and we're mostly Christian.
You mean their illegal immigrants problem started within the last three or so years? That thinking is just BS, MS, PhD. It has been going on for YEARS. Why wasn't it taken care of when Shrub (a small Bush) was our president? Or when the big Bush was the president?
Or weren't you in existance when either Bush was president? If you were, think back to those days.
Willing.Sniper here are a couple more:
Everyone one of them are in our country in violation of Title 8
Section 1325 US Code "Illegal entry without documentation." Also the
claim states can't enforce immigration laws is BS. Congress authorized states
many years ago under Title 8 Section 1644 US Code "Nothwithstanding any
other provision of federal,state,or local law,no state or local government
entity may be prohibited,or in any way restricted,from sending to or receiving
from the immigration service information regarding the immigration
status,lawful or unlawful,of an alien in the United States." Also we need
to contact our elected officials in washington to investigate the civil rights
division of the Justice Department, headed by Perez for violating Title 8
Section 1324 US Code "aiding,abetting,encouraging,harboring,transporting
and hiring illegals
Hey!
Over here!.....Me! Me! Me!
Hell, I'd gladly pay 5 times more!
I figure that by not having to support over 10 million illegal aliens and their anchor babies anymore - not to mention the tax bill from helping Americans who have been pushed out of work in the many industries taken over by illegals - I'll come out way ahead!
Personally I prefer to run the country via laws passed by Congress, NOT policy that changes with the wind from administration to administration.
1. The states want to enforce current laws put in place by congress.
2. The Obama administration wants to use new "polices" they put into place of non-enforcement.
I don't disagree that this president is pro-illegal immigration; but you must be on drugs or something if you think this is some sort of "liberal" issue - unless of course, you mean to call Ronald Reagan and George W Bush and the American Chamber of Commerce "liberals"
Reagan = the biggest amnesty ever granted to illegal immigrants in the eighties
Bush = an open supporter of amnesty. Failed only due to Congress following the will of the people
I love it when the liberals refer to Reagan and the amnesty bill without mentioning how badly the Democrat congress screwed over Reagan afterwards. The deal called for the border to be closed and sealed in exchange for amnesty for the illegals already here. Needless to say, the Democrats didnt hold up their end of the bargain.
This was the result of "compromise" between the 2 parties. I can understand after the Democrats have repeatedly reneged on their dealswith the Republicans, including the recent so-called budget cuts, that they are reluctant to "compromise" with them again.
flnobody "obama has deported more than your last wonder boy did. Try again."
Gee, that sounds nice - too bad it's not true.
Obama has only deported about 2/3 as many as Bush did, and he was on a pace that would have exceeded Bush, but Obama recently announced that his Administration would stop deporting the vast majority of illegal immigrants currently in custody, and would no longer seek to deport new ones unless they break additional laws. The reality is that actual deportation proceedings are very costly and ineffective. The answer is "Self Deportation". They are here because they can work, and if we really started enforcing the laws against employers, with stiff sanctions, then the illegal workers would voluntarily leave (Self-Deport) because they could no longer afford to stay here.
But a new election is coming up, and he needs to pander to the Hispanic vote, so don't hold your breath.
By the way - Can States enforce Federal immigration laws if the Federal Government does not?
For those interested, the answer is YES, and here is the analysis by a prominent law school;
"It is well established that the authority of state police to make arrests for violation of federal law is not limited to those situations in which they are exercising delegated federal power. Rather, such arrest authority inheres in the States' status as sovereign entities. It stems from the basic power of one sovereign to assist another sovereign. This is the same inherent authority that is exercised whenever a state law enforcement officer witnesses a federal crime being committed and makes an arrest. That officer is not acting pursuant to delegated federal power. Rather, he is exercising the inherent power of his state to assist another sovereign.
Abundant Case Law. There is abundant case law on this point. Even though Congress has never authorized state police officers to make arrest for federal offenses without an arrest warrant, such arrests occur routinely; and the Supreme Court has recognized that state law controls the validity of such an arrest. As the Court concluded in United States v. Di Re, "No act of Congress lays down a general federal rule for arrest without warrant for federal offenses. None purports to supersede state law. And none applies to this arrest which, while for a federal offense, was made by a state officer accompanied by federal officers who had no power of arrest. Therefore the New York statute provides the standard by which this arrest must stand or fall." 332 U.S. 581, 591 (1948). The Court's conclusion presupposes that state officers possess the inherent authority to make warrantless arrests for federal offenses. The same assumption guided the Court in Miller v. United States. 357 U.S. 301, 305 (1958). As the Seventh Circuit has explained, "[state] officers have implicit authority to make federal arrests." U.S. v. Janik, 723 F.2d 537, 548 (7th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, they may initiate an arrest on the basis of probable cause to think that an individual has committed a federal crime. Id.
The Ninth and Tenth Circuits have expressed this understanding in the immigration context specifically. In Gonzales v. City of Peoria, the Ninth Circuit opined in an immigration case that the "general rule is that local police are not precluded from enforcing federal statutes," 722 F.2d 468, 474 (9th Cir. 1983). The Tenth Circuit has reviewed this question on several occasions, concluding squarely that a "state trooper has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations," United States v. Salinas-Calderon, 728 F.2d 1298, 1301 n.3 (10th Cir. 1984). As the Tenth Circuit has described it, there is a "preexisting general authority of state or local police officers to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws," United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294, 1295 (10th Cir. 1999). And again in 2001, the Tenth Circuit reiterated that "state and local police officers [have] implicit authority within their respective jurisdictions 'to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws.'" United States v. Santana-Garcia, 264 F.3d 1188, 1194 (citing United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294, 1295). None of these Tenth Circuit holdings drew any distinction between criminal violations of the INA and civil provisions that render an alien deportable. Rather, the inherent arrest authority extends generally to both categories of federal immigration law violations."
The link to the analysis is as follows, and the actual rulings for the above cited cases are available online;
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1423.ZS.html
@basedrum777
wrong again (I see a trend)...Reagan agreed to to the "amnesty" because democrats wouldn't agree to closing the border without it...and then they did NOTHING to close the border , it's called "compromise" , you know that BS that you libs are always crying about...and you can do the research on the "amnesty" deal , I already did
@Chris-749391
"This situation exists because Reagan gave 4 million illegal immitrants unconditional amnesty"
you start off the drivle with WRONG information as well , my info to your buddy that I put above this relates to your diatribe as well...easily researched , but then you couldn't blame republicans if you did the slightest research
Spencer-399802, seriously, learn to use a little logic.
Let us say that there is a boss for a company who has run up millions of dollars in loss. That boss leaves, another is hired. It is not the fault of the new boss that there are millions of dollars in loss--it is the problem of the new boss to figure out what to do.
When one blames the new boss for not being able to wave a magic wand and recreate the millions of loss, then one is being extraordinarily stupid. We have millions of illegal aliens in the US because the Republican party invited them in--Reagan did amnesty, and Bush I and II turned a blind eye to enforcement. Now we have a Democratic president, and suddenly people who had no concern whatsoever about illegal immigration are all animated about it and blaming the current president for a situation he did not create.
What is he doing? 1) He has stepped up enforcement of laws regarding verifying employability--this is cheap. It takes one accountant to go to a business for a week--and that accountant runs off every Mexican, Canadian, and Chinese person who is afraid of being caught. This is a very cheap way to increase self-deportation. 2) He has stepped up the capture and deportation of those who engage in violent crime or property crime. There is no doubt that this has happened. 3) He has stepped up the Border Patrols tremendously. Under Bush II, Border Patrols were an absolute joke--they are no joke now. 4) He is trying to exempt only those individuals who would get other citizens agitated if they were deported, but is deporting everyone else at a rapid clip and is earning the enmity of the Latino community doing it.
What more do you want, bubba? Do you want armed raids in communities and people goose-marched to the border? Do you want to imprison (and pay for--people in prison have to be paid for) millions of people whose spouses and children (all citizens) then have to fend for themselves or wind up on welfare? Do you want to put automatic weapons at the borders that start shooting when they sense movement? Basically, do you want to turn into a Third World country with genocide issues?
I think he is doing everything that is affordable and reasonable at present. If there were less animosity on the topic, then he could probably do more. You want to try maybe working with the fellow who is doing the best he can to clean up a problem caused by those who came before--or do you just want to elect another Republican and then go back to pretending that illegal immigration isn't a problem?
What is annoying is that people who said not a word about illegal immigration under all the previous Republicans are now all animated with a Democratic president. It's a rather obvious ruse that Republicans don't give a flying flip about illegal immigration and are just making it an issue to make it an issue. I find you extremely disingenous--which is a nice way of saying that you are a hypocrite. Have a great day.
Tyler
What about the TEATARDS comments? How about the REPBLITARDS coments? What about the TEA BAGGER comments??? Where is your UNBIASED position on these type of comments???
ROY WILSON,
RE: your post #1.68
You should consider changing your moniker to HALF-TRUTH ROY. Why? see below for the answer.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/20/us-obama-immigration-idUSTRE78J05720110920
In 2.5 years in office, Obama has deported approximately 1.06 million illegal immigrants. Bush, in his eight years deported approximately 1.57 million illegals. Obama did recently give a directive to concentrate deporting those illegals with criminal records, but he also wanted reform in the immigration laws. He was blocked, no surprise here, by the GOPers in the Senate. The House of Representatives passed the measure on December 10, 2010 by a vote of 216-198. The proposed legislation was called the Dream Act. You may check the facts listed in the below history of this legislation which was, before Obama, supported by many Republicans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DREAM_Act#2011
People moaned, groaned, screamed and wailed over the burgeoning population and impact of illegal immigration long before the present administration. It guts your argument, but its a fact. You may live where there isn't as much impact as there is in Arizona and other border states, but the lack of action by administrations and every growing numbers of illegals and the problems they pose have pushed citizens in border states to the brink. You can say it isn't true, but it doesn't change the fact that it is true. I'd expend less energy trying to back the present administration's half hearted support of the Federal Immigration law - another glaring truth in the face of your sworn testimony he's all over this thing - and give the people who deal with this issue, up close and personal, a break from the defensive stance. Goose stepping and genocide is a dramatic flourish but this isn't drama class. This is 'Federal Immigration Law Enforcement' class.
Exactly!
So what's required here is to FIRST pass sensible immigration rules, because the current crop of dysfunctional quotas and non-sensical attempts at social engineering will NEVER work. In other words, it is the CURRENT RULES that mandate that we will CONTINUE to have unauthorized immigration until the idiotic rules are CHANGED.
THEN we can decide what to do with the 10.8 million people already here.
And what we SHOULD do with them is evaluate each one as an individual, in the context of their value to their families, communities, and employers in the United States.
Wasting billions and trillions on walls and trying to kill people won't stop immigration.
But sensible immigration rules, written in our own NATIONAL self-interest can end unauhorized immigration overnight, and at zero cost. Aren't we already paying Congress?
Precisely. If this was about Federal vs. State authority the federal government would presumably take exception to the amnesty bill California is trying to enact. However, since the Obama Administration is pro-amensty they won't take action against California eventhough such a bill would trample over Federal authority much like their medical marijauna legistlation.
In short, you have the federal government taking exception to states wanting to assist them in enforcing immigration laws but at the same time federal government has no problem state legislation that spits in the face of our current immigration laws. Seems odd to me.
No, it wasn't. It was the result of that great American, Ronald Reagan, who decried the "anti-immigrant hysteria" of bigots in both parties, compromising with the aforesaid idiot bigot politicians, who thought that they could legislate social engineering.
Reagan had to agree that only HALF the people here would be allowed to become citizens, and he had to sign off on stupid, unAmerican quotas and other dysfunctional restrictions in order to make things right for a few million AMERICANS. Reagan fought admirably against the bigots, and would do so today if he were still alive.
Reagan's 'amnesty' worked, as is PROVEN by the fact that even the most pro-Nazi eugenecists posting on Newsvine decline to attack the people who actually gained citizenship under Reagan's initiative.
But the social engineering crowd wreaked havoc with our immigration system, such that only half of the foreign-born people hired by US businesses were allowed to become citizens. THAT'S where the 10.8 million shadow Americans came from. They work hard, they pay taxes, they learn English, they educate their children, and they contribute to their communities, but the eugenecists don't want them gaining citizenship because too many of them have brown or yellow skin, or even worse, black skin.
It is the ridiculous QUOTAS and the 'enforcement only' approach that have failed miserably. 'Amnesty' worked like a charm.
End the quotas. All of them. Let Freedom ring! Let busniesses hire the best man or woman for the job, WITHOUT government interference!
lol common sense. fixing immigration through reform comes before sealing the border to PREVENT illegal immigration. I hope your water main doesnt break, your leak will end up flooding my house because you cant bail water fast enough. It makes too much sense to turn off the water first in your mind.
Good luck with that.
"Tired of silly", perhaps, but apparently not too tired to propose mass murder.
Adolf Hitler felt the same way, and he, too, was very popular.
Chris and Don in Phoenix make a lot more sense, but logic and sensibility are not always popular.
Hmmmmm,
All these posts and not a one about the most important statement in the article.
All you Constitutional scholars need to understand what this means. In essence this is what the Framer’s had intended our form of government be. The United States is a Federal Constitutional Republic, with this comes the separation, or more accurately, the overlap of many aspects of sovereignty between Federal and State powers. The Federal government has its level of sovereign powers and so do the individual States as per their State Constitutions. The Separation of Powers is the absolute condition for the Constitution existing. The Federal government has certain express powers, the Enumerated Powers, spelled out in the Constitution. Powers that the Constitution does not delegate to the Federal government, or forbids to the States, are called the reserved powers and are thus reserved to the States or to the People. This concept is the expression of Dual Federalism in our government. There never was any intent by the Framer’s to have an omnipotent Federal government that had absolute power over the sovereignty of the States.
Many of us have been attempting to express the necessity of the sovereignty of powers to be reinstituted. Not that they have been abjectly eliminated but they were significantly diminished in 1913. This is when the 10th Amendments power began to erode. Before 1913 the “dual sovereignty” between State and Federal government was well known and fully respected. The beauty of our Constitution is that it established an elaborate system of checks and balances to protect both State and Federal governments from each other and more importantly to protect We the People from the abuse and tyranny of either. This is what the Framer’s intended when they warned us of the “excesses of democracy” and the “Tyranny-by-Majority”. Thus the reason why we are a Republic rather than a Democracy.
Prior to 1913, U.S. Senators were appointed by their states legislatures and subsequently were held accountable to the same legislatures. The Framer’s understood that States needed someone in Washington to protect the States from increasing intrusion of the Federal government. Senators originally gave States the veto power over the House. If the House attempted to submit legislation that damaged or hampered the States 10th Amendment Rights the Senate could veto it and prevent it from becoming law. This system of checks and balances was designed to protect both States and Federal government’s sovereignty, without it the States become subject to the power of an omnipotent Federal government.
In 1913, with the advent of the 17th Amendment, the States power was dramatically reduced, some argue it was basically stripped. Senators were no longer held accountable to their respective State legislatures and they could no longer be fired for any malfeasance. The power of governance was shifted to Congress to force all manner of intrusive and unconstitutional Federal regulations over the state. The era of Big Government was born and with it the balance of powers under dual-sovereignty began to collapse. This intrusion was further precipitated with the “Revolution of 1937” which was as, if not more, damaging to States sovereignty. Repealing the 17th Amendment is a daunting task to say the least. However, if we really want our Constitution to work it is necessary.
As the article states, the sovereignty of the States is dependent on the return of dual-sovereignty. All the other nonsense everyone claims about the issue of immigration enforcement, and other State vs. Federal concerns, is moot until this disequilibrium is corrected. The Framer’s never intended one sovereignty to have power over the other. Rather it was intended as a mutual acceptance of each individual’s ability to govern. Hopefully the Supreme Court Justices will rule in favor of Arizona and begin the return of dual-sovereignty.
More importantly, it's imperative that the People wake up from their ignorance of how our government is intended to protect us from each other rather than from ourselves. Dual sovereignty must be reestablished under the Constitutional protections, Federal and State, we are afforded. This is exactly why we have every contentious argument requiring the courts decisions.
Our Federal Constitutional Republic depends on it.
I'll bet you two to one that the majority of you people claiming that SB1070 is unconstitutional havent even taken the time to read it in its entirety. And if you have read it and still find it to be unconstitutional then I would say your reading comprehension is a bit lacking.
EatDirt
You're right.
The sad reality is that many think they know how significant this and the Justices accepting the Health Care mandate constitutionality issue is, but they have no idea how our criminal government has usurped the Constitution for nearly 100 years under the guise of Progressivism. The fact that most American's are so uninformed about our governments true role is very difficult to understand. But then again when you realize the level of illiteracy we have allowed in our pathetic public education system, it becomes obvious.
The fact that the Federal government intruded into the education system is just another issue in the long list of Constitutional malfeasance we have allowed for decades. This is the result of the indoctrination of an ever expanding government with no true checks and balances to suppress it. Even more embarrassing is the willingness of our once very proud and independent populace to keep submitting to a government so corrupt. The fact that so many think government actually has their best interest at heart is at the root of the disconnect we have today.
Hopefully many will wake up, as they did in 2010, and continue to purge the corruption that has overwhelmed our great Republican government.
For all you SHEEP out there. This is what Obama says about his DEPORTATION NUMBERS.
"The statistics are actually a little deceptive," Obama said last month during a discussion with Hispanic journalists. There has been "a much greater emphasis on criminals than non-criminals." And "with stronger border enforcement, we've been apprehending folks at the borders and sending them back. That is counted as a deportation even though they may have only been held for a day or 48 hours."
So it looks like he ADMITS that his DEPORTATION NUMBERS are not as much as his Administration claims.
Hey, Loud, where exactly in the Constitution do you think it says that individual states have, or ever had, veto power over the House of Representatives or the Senate.
The correct answer is NOWHERE.
You can read and write, which means you're literate, so don't try to hide behind the public education system. The Constitution is short and to the point. Either quote the document or admit to fabricating.
beanathome, you blame Reagan for amnesty (eventhough the dem-controlled Congress renegged on their end of the deal to seal the border), you blame Bush 1 and 2, and then you defend Obama by saying that his "Republican" predecessors didn't do anything...but, conveniently, you don't even mention the 8 yrs of the Clinton administration!!!! Just sayin'....
FreedomRingsLoud, can you explain the contrary sentence you have in your comment, "Powers that the Constitution does not delegate to the Federal government, or forbids to the States, are called the reserved powers and are thus reserved to the States or to the People". This appears to be a digression as reserved powers are forbid to the States and not delegated to the Federal government, so they would not be "reserved to the States or to the People".
Also the Constitution, as you have expertly defined, lacks the right to reserve any rights to the people. The constitution regulates the government, and nothing more.
First paragraph, second sentence: its*. FYI.
EEK !!! The language arts police are out again.
FYI Nate. Its would read "It is ruling...". It's is a possessive pronoun, meaning the ruling is a possession of the Supreme Court.
No, Nate is correct. Its = possession, it's = it is. The author was in error, not Nate.
It's about time the Supreme Court took this on.
Now we'll see if this is a court that respects the Constitution, or one that intends to rewrite it.
Down with SB 1070!
Eric - Do you just really like Penguins, or have you been to Antarctica? I Wintered-Over in 1970. Peace.
Hi commonsense,
In what way is SB1070 a state rewriting of the US Constitution? The state argues that the feds control immigration and naturalization just as the constitution requires, but that since federal law already makes illegal entry into the USA illegal (wow, what a shock there) that the state can assist the feds in controlling the illegal act.
It is federal law NOW that all non-citizen immigrants keep on their person papers attesting to their status. All Alabama wants to do is make the same law at the state level, not to supercede the federal law, but to empower state LEOs to enforce the same standards.
What is it that you want these states to do? Allow their in-state firms to hire illegals? Allow illegals to cross their border (it is their border as well, not just the nation's) without threat of apprehension? There must be some level that the modern left will accept in enforcing current existing federal law, but all I see are those people finding hope in obstructing the same laws at the state level from being enforced. So what is it that you favor, rather than telling us all what you oppose? And please don't simply say you favor the constitution for I assure you that everyone on the opposite side of the SB1070 debate favors that as well.
Rich,
The action taken by the federal government is wrong. I have read SB1070 as well as the federal statutes and they jibe almost perfectly. The only reason for this waste of time and taxpayer dollars is votes. Obama fears losing minority votes if he doesn't stop the states from enforcing the law. The federal government can only question a state law when it contradicts a federal statute so for this to have made it this far is really surprising. We are lost in political correctness, the fallacy belief that you cannot insult anyone in anyway even if they are a criminal. This administration has taken what Clinton started to a new low. If a person is here illegally, they should be pursued and prosecuted. At the very least they should be sent back to their country of origin. Attacking states for trying to uphold federal laws is ridiculous beyond belief. If the fed wishes to keep this from happening, then they could simply change immigration requirements, making it easier for people to come here legally. They won't do that because it will cost them votes, so they have taken the course of selective enforcement as the path to pleasing everybody instead of doing what is right!
What is ironic is that the States that want to control illegal immigration already had it within their power to enforce Federal immigration laws that were far stricter than Arizona's law. There is a long standing Court ruling that basically says 'If a State authorizes their police officers to enforce Federal immigration laws, then those Federal laws may be enforced by State and Local police officials'.
All it required was for the State to pass a law that basically says "All State police officials are hereby authorized to enforce existing Federal immigration laws".
What's interesting is that Federal law allows police to stop and question people about their immigration status WITHOUT EVEN HAVING 'REASONABLE SUSPICION'. They can even go up to any individual standing on a street corner and ask them about their immigration status, and current Federal law requires any foreigner to carry appropriate proof of legal status on their person. This was a unanimous decision by the Supreme Court in 'Muller vs Menia' in 2005. If the Feds don't want to enforce immigration laws, the States already have that ability.
These States that want to have control of immigration have needlessly complicated a very simple and straightforward issue.
It's appropriate that Justice Kagan recused herself on this issue because of her previous work on the issue, but it's curious that she did not recuse herself from the 'Obamacare' case, even though she worked extensively on that issue as well. I think that sets a dangerous precedent for future Justices since the normal procedure calls for judges to recuse themselves from cases on which they worked as a proponent or defendant in a lower court.
Rich and commonsense....please try to follow along. We are talking about punctuation here, not some immigration law.
Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have now proposed an unmanned border crossing with Mexico. WTF. open border? The drug lords will love it, and 10 million Mexicans will be here in a week.
Time to replace ALL politicians in Washington. New blood that will 1. end the reckless, destructive spending, 2. vote for a term limit for the Congress.
Good luck going to a hotel and paying $100 a night those days will be gone!!! You think food is expense now, just watch what happens!! The rich will have no problem adjusting, but the poor and middle classes will be broke or staving!!!! Sad, that we let it get this bad, oh and do you think for one minute that the 11 to 20 million here don't pay sales tax or buy merchandise??? Look out there goes the FARM and a huge chunks of our economy will be gone in short order!! Housing, Ag, Meat Processors, and the list will go on and on!!!
Nate and Toasty, both of you are correct. I have misused this grammar rule all my life. Thanks.
By reviewing the case, Arizona v. United States, the Supreme Court is notably rejecting the request by the Obama Administration's Department of Justice (DOJ) that it let the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision stand.
This is such a farce. Meanwhile Texas is doing this:
The U.S. is proposing its first unmanned border crossing with Mexico in a remote stretch of West Texas.
Federal officials tout the port of entry in Big Bend National Park as a security upgrade, noting that wading across the shallow Rio Grande undetected is all too easy.
By the spring, kiosks could open up allowing people from the tiny Mexican town of Boquillas del Carmen to scan their identity documents and talk to a customs officer in another location, at least 100 miles away.
Authorities say extra Border Patrol agents would be stationed in the park if the crossing is approved. The estimated $2.3 million project has support from both countries.
So how do YOU think the Supreme Court is going to come down on this issue? 2.3 Million of our money. lol....I could spell out the word I'd use for them but maybe that's why my first post of this was completely removed...but then again...maybe not.
...Another point: while stopping a person suspected of local criminal/illegal activity, shouldn't the police look to see if there are any other warrants out on this person, Federal, State or local? What if said person was wanted for another Federal violation? Wouldn't the police have the responsibility to hold that person? Or, since it's a federal offense, should they let them go as it is not in their jurisdiction? This could be a slippery slope for law enforcement on a national level, so be very careful what you wish for.
There's several statements here that are showing lack of research on the immigration subject. One of the most highest priority is the Mexican attitude toward the U.S.A. In one state-side national news interview with, at that time Mexican president Vincent Fox told America in front of a news camers, that Mexico doe's not recognize the border because the southwest states belong to Mexico. Did ANY of you watch that interview or were you too busy texting each other as usual. Next priorty is for everyone to research two Mexican movements that never surface on the news. " RECONQUISTA DEL NORTE" and
"AZTLAN",if you are AMERICAN YOU WILL BE MORE THEN JUST OUTRAGED. This is what is behind all of this multitude invasion. If you have any guts, RESEACH THIS, it is not a story. It's time to get on the same American page here and now. Forget this swibbleing about laws that already exist and focus on the attack that's threating our Nation. Get these Mexican programs out in the open where you post your opions and spread the knowledge! I dare anyone to actually look for your own well being in this country. Here, this should get you stated in the right direction. Or just move out of the way like a coward and traitor
www.aztlan.net/homeland.htm
aztlan.net
www.aztlan.net/homeland.htm
It's unconstitutional to prosecute on a state level a federal offense.
"Bank Robbery" is a federal crime; yet local police enforce that federal law.
Local city and state police can enforce any federal law.
Rich-281385 - There are any number of "fixes" to the illegal immigration issue including criminal charges against employers who knowingly hire Illegal immigrants. In my humble opinion, some of these laws (Arizona's in particular) which would allow local law enforcement to require American Citizens to prove citizenship because they are "driving while hispanic" smacks a little of another era in another country...know what I mean?
Can States enforce Federal immigration laws if the Federal Government does not?
For those interested, the answer is YES, and here is the analysis by a prominent law school;
"It is well established that the authority of state police to make arrests for violation of federal law is not limited to those situations in which they are exercising delegated federal power. Rather, such arrest authority inheres in the States' status as sovereign entities. It stems from the basic power of one sovereign to assist another sovereign. This is the same inherent authority that is exercised whenever a state law enforcement officer witnesses a federal crime being committed and makes an arrest. That officer is not acting pursuant to delegated federal power. Rather, he is exercising the inherent power of his state to assist another sovereign.
Abundant Case Law. There is abundant case law on this point. Even though Congress has never authorized state police officers to make arrest for federal offenses without an arrest warrant, such arrests occur routinely; and the Supreme Court has recognized that state law controls the validity of such an arrest. As the Court concluded in United States v. Di Re, "No act of Congress lays down a general federal rule for arrest without warrant for federal offenses. None purports to supersede state law. And none applies to this arrest which, while for a federal offense, was made by a state officer accompanied by federal officers who had no power of arrest. Therefore the New York statute provides the standard by which this arrest must stand or fall." 332 U.S. 581, 591 (1948). The Court's conclusion presupposes that state officers possess the inherent authority to make warrantless arrests for federal offenses. The same assumption guided the Court in Miller v. United States. 357 U.S. 301, 305 (1958). As the Seventh Circuit has explained, "[state] officers have implicit authority to make federal arrests." U.S. v. Janik, 723 F.2d 537, 548 (7th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, they may initiate an arrest on the basis of probable cause to think that an individual has committed a federal crime. Id.
The Ninth and Tenth Circuits have expressed this understanding in the immigration context specifically. In Gonzales v. City of Peoria, the Ninth Circuit opined in an immigration case that the "general rule is that local police are not precluded from enforcing federal statutes," 722 F.2d 468, 474 (9th Cir. 1983). The Tenth Circuit has reviewed this question on several occasions, concluding squarely that a "state trooper has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations," United States v. Salinas-Calderon, 728 F.2d 1298, 1301 n.3 (10th Cir. 1984). As the Tenth Circuit has described it, there is a "preexisting general authority of state or local police officers to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws," United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294, 1295 (10th Cir. 1999). And again in 2001, the Tenth Circuit reiterated that "state and local police officers [have] implicit authority within their respective jurisdictions 'to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws.'" United States v. Santana-Garcia, 264 F.3d 1188, 1194 (citing United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294, 1295). None of these Tenth Circuit holdings drew any distinction between criminal violations of the INA and civil provisions that render an alien deportable. Rather, the inherent arrest authority extends generally to both categories of federal immigration law violations."
The link to the analysis is as follows, and the actual rulings for the above cited cases are available online;
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1423.ZS.html
Thanks for the research and citations Roy! See all Mueller v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (2005) --- A 9-0 Unanimous Decision:
So, the Arizona law, which requires that officers have an independent reasonable suspicion before questioning about immigration status REQUIRES FAR MORE than the U.S. Supreme Court has already determined is legally required before engaging in such questioning!
How can someone be arrested without cause, held in prison, and forced to prove their innocence before they will be released? That violates the Constitution, due process, equal treatment, and the very principles of English common law upon which our entire judicial system is based.
That's just one example. There are plenty of others. SB 1070 is a bad substitute for law, and bad 'laws' reduce respect for the 'Law' in general.
No one would ever stop me just to ask me to prove my citizenship. No one should ever be stopped on the street just to 'prove' that they have a 'right' to live and breath and work by the sweat of their brow.
Me? I believe in that whole "unalienable rights" thing that my fathers fought to enshrine as our nation's hallmark. The xenophobic haters? I wonder why they even bother to claim to be American in the first place. It doesn't seem to mean much to them, other than a meal ticket and the privilege of being first in line at the trough.
Roy Wilson,AngelicaS,WillingSniper, and all others who spin, baby,spin.
"www.fairus.org/site/DocServer/ariz_SB1070_summary.pdf?docID...Similar."
"Allows legal residents of Arizona to sue if they feel a government agency adopts a policy
that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws." (§ 2(G), page 2).
FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM • WWW.FAIRUS.ORG
Summary of Arizona SB 1070 as Enacted
Page 2
•
"Mirrors federal alien registration laws; provides that illegal aliens who violate federal
alien registration laws (8 U.S.C. 1304(e) and 8 U.S.C. 1306(a), which require aliens to
register and carry their documents with them at all times) are now subject to arrest and
penalties under the Arizona criminal code. (§ 3, page 3 – 4)."
The above summary of the Arizona Law 1070, is not constitutional, because the law goes beyond the federal law. The citizen of Arizona is now able to sue the State agency. This is beyond the ruling of the courts on the Federal Law. The State now has the ability to charge a person with a violation of State law, again way beyond the scope of the Federal Law and any findings by the courts.
Yes, local and State can enforce the Federal Law, but they can not bring the defendant to court on their State Law, or allow a citizen to sue the State for not enforcing a Federal Law.
Rather simple.
"
It's pretty pathetic that so many states are taking the lead on illegal immigration while the Federal government fights their efforts to enforce our laws.
luke
These states are writing their own immigration laws. Which is wrong. What they should have done. Is to pass something to allow their law enforcement to enforce the federal law.
The federal government has always overseen immigration. Letting each state decide who it lets in doesn't help the country. That said, both sides have done little to pass anything, fearing problems during elections.
Obama's record is pretty good on immigration. He's deported more than Bush ever did.
Flnobody,
That is exactly what they did.
Federal Law allows for local police to enforce Federal regulations. If you want to admit it or not, all the AZ law did was specifically call out that State and Local Police can now ( which they already were allowed to do ) enforce Immigration Status.
Its not the Law the left is pissed about. It is the fact that a police office can now ask for immigration status like they can ask for your Drivers License.
Americans across the political spectrum (including Democrats like me) demand that our government enforce our immigration laws. If the federal government refuses to require compliance with its own laws, the states must, as they cannot afford the continue deterioration caused by the catastrophic costs of ILLEGAL immigration.
Stop this insanity! A GOVERNMENT WHICH REFUSES TO ENFORCE ITS OWN LAWS IS INTOLERABLE!
Kinda stupid dont you think? Pass a law that allows cops to enforce the laws????
flnobody, the states do not have a choice. The illegal immigration is costing states billions of dollars in aid costs. The pathetic thing about this is that obama and other federal departments are sworn to uphold the constitution and our laws and not doing it. They all need to be booted out of office. There are people afraid to come out of their houses in these southern states due to illegal immigrants and the federal government is doing almost nothing. The states have no choice when the federal government does not uphold our laws. Also, keep in mind that when police stop any person, they are asked for an ID. It does not matter was race, gender, or whatever else you are.
The problem is the republicans refuse to let any type of immigration reform pass under Obama as part of their no-to-anything policy. The system is broke, there is NOT a reasonable path to citizenship or residency for many illegal immigrants. The rotting crops in Alabama and Georgia are proof that we need immigrants and that our guest worker program does not provide enough workers.
Cmon Dem, You know full well that the party of NO started during W's second term when the Dems got control. THAT is when pure partisan politics started.
Don't get me wrong. I think W was just short of committing treason where a couple of things were concerned including illegal aliens. Notice I did not say undocumented workers. They are no longer taking over the state. They have it. I wonder how that happened??? Started in the 70's, so it is not a democrat problem or a republican problem, it is a national problem.
Amen, Lukewarm, our states are finally having to step up and do what the government WON'T do. Their laws and they will not enforce them. It is really sad when your own government won't enforce it's own laws.
They should be stopped in their tracks, the US people need those jobs. It is time for the companies that hire illegals to be fined along with possible jail time.
Good! It's time to find out if States can enforce Federal Laws the Federal Government isn't willing to enforce!
Sounds like nobody here has traveled out of the US. See what happens when you get asked for your passport and you respond "I don't have one" in a foreign country.
No corporate hiring in the slaughter houses, poultry industries, hospitality, and agriculture would stop the slow of folks into this country. Let's see if the SCOTUS will side with corporations. In the mean while---pick your own fruit and vegetables, clean your motel rooms, and slaughter your own critters. Very tribal--people.
The SCOTUS has Scalia and his lap dog, Clarence Thomas, ruling for corporate interest.
Here's a novel idea - Why doesn't the supreme court simply mandate that our public federal servants enforce laws on illegal entry into the usa?
If they would do this all the hoopla and wasted energy toward individual state laws would be moot.
What's pathetic is that so few people on Newsvine can tell the difference between enforcement of federal law, and the imposition of state rules that violate the supreme law of the land.
Hi again commonsense,
As I wrote above none of the laws in any of the states that have enacted them supercede federal law. If they did I would side with you on the question of constitutionality. All the laws I am aware of, so far, mimic federal law at the state level, which is entirely constitutional (see drug laws, see environmental laws, etc...). State LEOs can't enforce federal law directly since they aren't federal agents, so states must pass state laws. What's pathetic is that you think your local sheriff can, without any state law or local ordinance, enforce the federal laws you claim to support.
Common, the supremacy clause prevents states from passing laws which conflict with federal law or policy. Federal law and policy require that immigrants apply and recieve permission-- work visa, student visa, etc...before immigrating to the USA. There is nothing in anything that I have seen in the Arizona law that would conflict with federal law or policy. In comparison look to narcotics laws. The federal controlled substances act prohibits the sale or use of marijuana for any purpose. Federal policy has been to strickly enforce the CSA even to the point of having a war on drugs..the fed spends billions regulating narcotics use and distribution...see FDA, ATF, DEA etc...yet with all that federal involvment the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that state laws prohibiting or regulating narcotics use and distribution are legal and do not cause issue with supremacy clause...even, like in California, Oregon, Washington and other states pass laws which conflict with the CSA.
Hey sandtrich,
You know what is funny about your post? What am I saying? Of course you have no idea what is funny about your post. Well, I'll help you. I don't think there is one legal observer that thinks Scalia and Thomas will rule against Arizona, and Arizona's laws would help punish corporations that hire illegals. Yet you rail against both Scalia and Thomas for being corporate lapdogs, but isn't it President Obama that wants the current system, where companies can seemingly hire illegals with impunity, to remain in place?
Now for what is sad about your post. It doesn't disqualify you from voting.
The Giligan-I haven't seen the info you're talking about. Could you cite the article(s) you read? Thank you.
Hi Hope,
Because the federal constitution is supreme, and the federal government superior (not in terms of quality, just status) to the states, and the USSC is a co-equal branch, there is no way to force specific performance on the part of the feds. But you have that power with your vote. Our leftist friends will continue, if these posts are any indication, to support doing nothing to stop illegals from entering the USA so we cannot depend on them to help solve the problem.
At this point the only hope we have to stop illegal immigration lies with states taking positive action to enforce the state equivalents of federal immigration law. Perhaps in 2013 something can change, but we are here and now. I hope the USSC gets this case right.
I'm going to break taboo and just say it. I wish one of these states would opt for secession so a nut like me could go live there. After all, the original US constitution never said we couldn't and the fed has lost its way.
Did you miss the word "illegal" in your response? Why should there be a path to citizenship or residency for any illegal immigrants?
It's not a taboo. When the federal alliance fails over time to protect states (as the constitution plainly demands) the states should be able to act on their own to satisfy their own practical and constitutional goals. And when the federal government then acts to stop states from protecting themsevlves the affected states must have some way to end their participation in the federation.
Admission could not be simply a one way street. The problem is the constitution fails to address how to secede if a state would want to. I think a mirror image of the admission process would be a good place to begin the discussion of how to do it. I don't like it, and I would like to see our leftist friends take this and otehr issues more seriously, but it might just take a state leaving the union to cause an awakening.
Man--you are one sanctimonious rascal. I always like to read a post where someone can "teach" me and lead me from my ignorance and into the light. George Washington was a Federalist and believed in a strong central government. The sitting President has deported more of those in this country illegally than his predecessor did in 8 years. Oddly, the Cons make it about the President--in spite of the record number of deportations. The farmers in the South are screaming because of the lack of migrant workers due to the Alabama law.
Illuminate me further, oh ye wise one. In as much as you have it figured out--lower unemployment by bringing the jobs back that were exported by the greed of corporations. I repeat--who hires the illegals? Corporations do.
They tried that in 1865 and found that it was costly and unworkable. It is in all the textbooks it was called the Revolutionary War. We don't need secession, the States can do like they've always done against minorities they didn't particularly care for, arrest them on trumped up charges and give them some time and then deport them.
You do realize that the south lost that one right?
Parts of SB1070 are unconstitutioinal, which would let all those "illegals" off the hook, even if the AZ police arrest them and toss them in jail. They'd be out on the appeal that they are allowed under our laws. And yes, even though they are considered illegal, states can F up and break laws, which would make any efforts null and void. States are not allowed to prosecute for a federal offense and SB 1070 had that written in. It would basically make a person who is guilty of a crime, have to serve a state penalty and a federal penalty. States are allowed to detain suspected illegals until federal prosecuters and investigators determine the status of that person. And every right wing kook wants less government which means less Federal "union workers" who get all the money in the world and all the great benefits that make right wingnuts' heads spin. Make up your mind! What good is all the emotional BS about how illegals have destroyed your state, if the people you elected in that state are so stupid that they are giving the illegals a "Get out of Jail Free" card every time and at the same time, you GOP voters are crying that we need less people in public jobs? Perhaps you shouldn't have re-elected a nincompoop like Brewer? Ever think of that?
I'll bet you two to one that the majority of you people claiming that SB1070 is unconstitutional, havent even taken the time read it in its entirety. And if you have read it and still find it unconstitutional then I would say that your reading comprehension is a bit lacking.
States must be taught that legislating against Hispanic Americans is wrong, immoral, illegal, and will not be tolerated by a democratic United States government. These anti-immigrant laws are exposing the hateful core of the GOP. Any position that does not involve rounding up every Hispanic in the ol' USA at gunpoint and sending them on the next military transport back to Mexico City is tantamount to "amnesty" in the eyes of the Republican voting base. Throw these laws out... http://www.sunstateactivist.org
I'm sorry, matt, but I agree with micheal. Illegal immigrants aren't 'hispanic americans', theiry citizens of another country who have crossed our borders without following the legal steps required. I am sympathetic to their plight but there has to be a limit.
Is there any way you can get on the transport and leave with them, Matt? Please?
Oh come on! So, enforcing the laws of the U.S. is hateful? We are becoming a nation that selectively enforces its laws (sanctuary cities?). That's pretty much what third world countries do.... and how's that working for them?
The law doesn't target Hispanic Americans. It targets ILLEGALS of any nationality. AMERICAN means you are a citizen with rights. These people do not. They are here illegally and should be sent home. Doesn't matter where they come from .
You and others do not have any understanding of this law. The states want to have the right to ask a person for identification, no different if you are white, male, female, etc. The federal government is saying they cannot do this. If you are stopped for any violation, it is a law that you have to have proper ID. If not, they haul you in.
Matt...More pandering...not all hispanic are here illegally...they are not the only illegal immigrants here...immigration laws are being enforced against everyone but hispanic illegally here...case in point: where I live there has been cases where portuguese, Brazilian and Cape Verdean(Former Portuguese colony) illegal immigrants who were brought here very young have been deported.
Typically, because they have been convicted of a crime and are sent back because thats what the law requires. Hispanic get preferential treatment here in all aspects.
Another case: A factory in New Bedford, MA was raided where roughly 105 illegal were taken into custody, all were hispanics.
The business were arrested for hiring illegals....after it all died down, all but 7 were release and successfully sued and won $600,000. But everyone here knew the INS would buckle and give in to hispanic PACs. So, there isnt any new legislature against hispanics, its more about enforcing the laws we already have.
Just like Mexico does. Had the raid been of any other Nationality or race the outcome would have been different, much different.
I don't understand the, "They take our jobs" argument. There are plenty of jobs open in Alabama and Georgia right now, so please, explain why unemployment is still around 9%? Explain to me why the program to get prisoners to pick our crops failed.
The point is we need to change our immigration policies. Currently many undocumented immigrants have no path to citizenship or residency despite having been here since they were very young. The law is that anyone who enters the country illegaly faces a 10 year bar (remember many undocumented immigrants have just overstayed their visas), meaning in order to obtain the right to remain in the country they have to leave the country for 10 years. Even cases where the individual marries a U.S. citizen they still face the 10 year bar. These cases have nothing to do with the actual facts of the case and are based soley on the mood of the officer that is handling the case. These officers are not judges, they are not attorneys, and they have the final say. On a final note, beating the 10 year bar often costs upwards of $8,000 of which 95% of that goes to the lawyer, not to the government.
As many as 50 undocumented workers on a single social security number. Article was right here on MSNBC.....!!!
How is that not a problem?????
Dem in Texas - If you could make $10 per hour to sit at home for 24 months, or $10 per hour working seasonally in Alabama fields, which option would you choose?
The problem with these state laws is that they are aimed exclusively at the "mexican" illegals and the majority of the illegals coming into this country today are not Mexican.....they are Central Americans, South Americans, Dominicans, Haitians, Chinese, etc. There are probably as many illegals coming in through our ports in the Gulf, Pacific and Atlantic, and the Canadian border (all of that unprotected border) as there are coming through Mexico.
The other thing everyone forgets is that ICE's definition of 'illegal' needs to be better defined and they need to stop penalizing immigrants for ICE's mistakes:
Lack of proper training of immigration inspectors resulted in their mistaken conclusion that Sharon McKnight’s passport was fraudulent. McKnight spent eight days in Jamaica before returning to New York. While there, her luggage, containing all her money, was stolen. Airport workers contributed money so she could reach family members. Once there, her mother flew to Jamaica from New York to take her case to the US consulate in Kingston. With the help of Rep. Michael Forbes (D-NY), consulate officials determined that the passport and birth certificate, which immigration officials had declared fraudulent, were in fact real, and established McKnight’s US citizenship.
When Angela Boneva, a 34 year old, went to renew her passport in 2003, the State Department told her she was no longer a citizen. Boneva's father was born in Indiana, and the US consulate in Bulgaria gave her U.S. citizenship while she was growing up in Bulgaria in 1981.The State Department said that an employee at the consulate broke a rule that required her father to have lived in the U.S. for 10 years before she was born, the Tribune reported. Her father had only lived in the U.S. for six years before his parents moved to Bulgaria.
Ms. Boneva's father was born in Indiana. That makes him a citizen, and it makes her a citizen since she's his daughter. How is it fair to penalize Ms. Boneva for a consulate's mistake when her father was six years old?
Deolinda Smith-Willmore, a partially blind, 71-year-old with schizophrenia, born in New York to an African-American father and an immigrant from the Dominican Republic. According to Smith-Willmore, she informed immigration officers of her U.S. citizenship while detained, but no attempt was made to verify her claim
and she was not referred to an immigration judge.Upon her arrival, the government of the Dominican Republic housed her in a nursing home and obtained a U.S. attorney for her who easily obtained a copy of her birth certificate.
Deporting elderly, mentally disabled, handicapped individuals because they didn't check her claims to citizenship. Great job, ICE. How about deporting the MS13 gangbanger before you start chucking out little old ladies who are legal citizens?
More than two months after the earthquake that devastated Haiti, at least 30 survivors who were waved onto planes by Marines in the chaotic aftermath are prisoners of the United States immigration system, locked up since their arrival in detention centers in Florida.
In Haiti, some were pulled from the rubble, their legal advocates say. Some lost parents, siblings or children. Many were seeking food, safety or medical care at the Port-au-Prince airport when terrifying aftershocks prompted hasty evacuations by military transports, with no time for immigration processing. None have criminal histories. But when they landed in the United States without visas, they were taken into custody by immigration authorities and held for deportation, even though deportations to Haiti have been suspended indefinitely since the earthquake. Legal advocates who stumbled on the survivors in February at the Broward County Transitional Center, a privately operated immigration jail in Pompano Beach, Fla., have tried for weeks to persuade government officials to release them to citizen relatives who are eager to take them in, letters and affidavits show.
They're already traumatized once by the earthquake and the loss of everything they knew. Let's traumatize them again by throwing them in jail even though it wasn't their fault they don't have papers.
THIS SYSTEM IS BROKEN AND NEEDS REFORM.
@ Janine: you don't care as long as it's not you?
You better start caring.
Americans just lost the protection of Article III, Section II of the constitution due to a recent addendum to a military spending bill.
Keep thinking that you have rights because you're an American- keep thinking that until the day it becomes convenient to shut you away for an indefinite period of time without trial or representation.
FeO2 -
What part did American citizens loose control of?
I still stand on the same merits.. if Illegals are here (regardless of their country of origin), they must be on the path to becoming an American Citizen, or they get sent back to where they came from. While they are here, they are NOT entitled to any social services that are paid for by the American Tax Payer. If we as American's moved to other countries, I doubt very much if they are going to give us a free ride. America was FOUNDED on immigration, the only difference is those people (my ancestors) wanted to get a job and become an American Citizen.
Next, Americans.. GET THE H*LL off your lazy A** and take a job that these immigrants may already be filling. Stop being afraid to get your hands dirty for once. I would rather go shovel it... than sit on my rear collecting a welfare check.
concerned, I believe Fe02 was referring to the amendment that the Senate attached (and I don't think the conference committee removed) that granted the MILITARY power to detain American citizens (a further expansion of the Patriot Act) that President Obama has threatened to veto.
Anti trust proponent,
Show me one place where any of these state laws specifically targets Mexican illegals. They don't. All the laws are carefully worded to include all illegals so they may not be found unconstitutional or racially biased. It is Obama and the feds that are crying that these laws unfairly target Mexican immigrants. SB1070 particularly goes out of its way to mind its language including all illegals and being very specific on when officers may or may not ask for proof of citizenship. This is becoming a revisit of the race wars in the seventies and early eighties where blacks were accusing laws of being racially biased. The only proof they could offer was the amount of minority prisoners in our prison systems. The only thing that it seemed to prove is that minorities are more likely to commit a crime and serve jail time for it than anyone else. That in no way means the laws themselves are biased. The case here is the same, Mexican illegals are the predominant part of the problem, therefore it appears that it is targeting them when in fact it targets ALL ILLEGAL ALIENS.
anti-trust & FeO2 - I gotcha. I just read up on the matter. It does seem in the wording that this won't be snatching people off the street like the Nazi's did. Sounds like you have to be a suspected member of a terrorist group. To be suspected, there has to be basis in law, not opinion. Criminal suspects are routinely arrested under current law. What impact does the most recent legislation have, other than leaving out the provision that they are guaranteed a speedy trial? Is that the bottom line issue?
What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Anyone can be a 'suspected' member of a terrorist group. A random post on the internet taken out of context could be enough to raise suspision. Glad to see you are happy with your rights and your childrens rights being systematically taken away, but I want a better future for my family. We need to get rid of the police state not expand it.
If the feds are going to make it illegal for states to ask for proof of citizenship, how does the federal government fine and arrest business owners for hiring illegal aliens? Shouldn't it be illegal and unconstitutional then for business owners to ask prospective employees for proof of citizenship?
TamL - I never said I was for or against this measure. I am trying to understand another person's point of view before getting myself in too deep. I think this country could help itself by trying a little understanding before going ballistic...
@Concerned I think we need to be very vigilant when it comes to our civil rights. It will not be long and they will all be stripped away and because we were apathetic about the enfringement no one will notice until the one that is important to them is gone and it is too late.
TamL-- We should be vigilant when it comes to our civil rights and liberties. However, being in this country ILLEGALLY is NOT A PROTECTED CIVIL LIBERTY INTEREST. There is NO RIGHT NOT to be deported if you are here ILLEGALLY.
Further, the Arizona law requires that police officers actually have a reasonable suspicion before inquiring about immigration status after a lawful stop. The U.S. Supreme Court has already held 9-0 that police officers do not even need a reasonable suspicion before questioning someone about immigration status (see Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (2005))
@AngelicaS, my comment had nothing to do with Illegals having rights. It was in response to
Everyone on the vine knows how much you hate immigrants legal and illegal, so I am not even going to have that discussion with you.
The law will get thrown out.
About time. 5 different Fed Courts have upheld States Rights concerning this matter. Time for SCOTUS to get on board and end this mess once and for all.
They won't...Nothing will ever be done about hispanic(we enforce the laws against all other groups) illegal immigration...in 25-30 years from now, the country will be overwhelmingly Latino/Hispanic. In my community, the hispanic lobby is trying to redistrict the congressional borders so they may have a voice. What they mean is to use their numbers to gain political seats in congress and senate. Control, they do not vote for any non-hispanic candidate, no matter what unless there is not an hispanic running. In providence, their numbers have exploded, 10 years ago we had 35,000 now that number is around 80,000 of which 10,000 are illegal immigrants. Providence population is just under 200k, illegals get food stamps, welfare, in-state tuition, minority business loans and etc. on and on. I will say this, legal hispanic immigrants are against illegals, for the most part. They realize that illegals do more harm to them than anyone else.
I find it amusing that the Democratic hadquarters here has a sign on their front window in Spanish. Now, why would an American Citizen that has the "right to vote" need that????
That is why NOTHING will happen. VOTES!!!!!!!
Yes, hispanics are booming in numbers. Did you ever ask yourself why? It's because we have more children on average than caucasian families, we also have higher teen pregnancy rates and higher birth rates among younger couples. So tell the right to keep doing abstinence only programs, keep putting unjustified restrictions on plan b and keep preventing teenagers from taking proper sexual education courses. In 20 years the U.S. of A will be Latino.
Dem in Texas - The "right" are not the ones who dropped the latest bomb on Plan B. Blame it on the current Democratic administration (YES, the Obama administration). Just remember, you and I are in this together. Don't feed the crap the extremist media camps want you to believe!
Dem In Texas,
Yes we are fully aware of the lack of responsibility for children in the Latino community. And your blaming that on who??????? How about you and those like you "Finally" taking respsoncibility for something.
Also, growth from an estimated 12 million gleens huge on the numbers you stated.
Thirdly, we are fully aware of your statements about TAKING OVER the United States. Unfortunatley, we know what you did to Mexico so pardon us, if there are a few of us that wish to resist that. NOW that is something to be proud of!!!
@Michael your numbers do not add up, unless you are saying 85% of the hispanic population is infected with aids and 80% of the black population is in fected with aids and 30% of the white population is infected with aids you are also saying the the 30% of the white population that is infected with aids is 25% homosexual 5% bi-sexual .. those numbers do not even come close to the nation average. I guess if you want to reinact broke back mountain Texas is the place to go roflmao.
I need to contact the 20+ cousins I have in texas (all hispanic) and find out which ones are infected with aids. Based on your numbers the odds are at least 16 of them are ill and they haven't bothered to let the family know.
Here is a place to begin your research so you can actuallly have some facts.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/geographic.htm
It is likely the Court will support the position that immigration law is primarily the responsibility of the federal government. That said however, the issue that remains unaddressed and to me a much larger problem is the consequence of the federal government's lack of duty to enforce its own laws. By not enforcing federal laws the administration essentially puts the States in the unsustainable position of trying to providehuman services without a mechanism for appropriate funding. Since illegals are not supposed to count in representation, taxation and census pools, the extra drain to the under represented communities are undermining affected State economies. Once again the administration views short term socialist prerogative in arrogant deference to the cascade of unintended consequence. Harvard sure turns out the deep thinkers.....
There is probably only one way to get congress to address immigration reform in a timely fashion. That would be for all the states to sue congress, and garnishee the entire congressional budget, to pay for the costs that the states incur from the lack of congressional action. Slap a lien on all lobbyist monies that congress takes in as well, and you will see swift action on immigration reform.
Hitting the congress in the wallet seems the only way to get their attention. Anything else will just lead to more of the same stonewalling that has been going on for the past century.
I believe that the Republicans have time and time again not allowed the issue of immigration come to the Congress to actually make an immigration policy for this country come to be a reality.
Maybe because we already have immigration law, just follow it...
Now that is the argument isn't it!!!
Good. With Kagan recused, there is a good chance that Arizona can protect her borders without a pro-illegal immigration fed being able to interfere.
Obama has been crapping on State's Rights since he took office.
States' and states rights advocates need to have their necks stepped on from time to time to remind them they are part of the United States
And you all powerful Federal Government types need to have your dicks stepped on from time to time to remind you that you live in a representative country and not a dictatorship.
Ltcommander72
Lt commander of what pray tell? States have a legitimate right to make a law more stingent than the Federal law, they simply can't make one less stringent. Know anything about the Constitution or Constitutional Law? I'm glad to see the Supreme Court taking on so many of these controversies. Hopefully our last bastian of hope for our Country and Constitution will prove true to thier oath to uphold that Constitution unlike our current politicians.
#10.1 doesn't like that pesky 10th Amendment. Interfered with Obama's "Rule".
Obama's message has turned from one of 'hope', which is all he brought to the White House to one of fear-mongering and attack politics.
That's because Obama cannot run on his record.
The Federal Government has not been doing its job for decades regarding illegal immigration - it is not the blame of any one President or Congress. It has turned a blind eye to corporations and farmers and individuals who employ illegals. Of course illegals will continue coming - as long as people break the laws by hiring them and aren't punished. The Republicans won't do anything about it since illegals represent cheap labor for the Republican voting base, and the Democrats won't do anything about it because they don't want to offend their voting base. In the meantime, some of the states are forced to carry a huge burden providing education and health care - with no assistance from the Federal Government. I honestly don't know if these illegals pay in more to the system (in taxes, consumerism, SSA that they won't claim, etc) than they use - there are so many conflicting reports. I think this country would find out just how dependent it is on illegals (like those Alabama farmers) if we severely enforced the laws. Then, maybe, there could be honest dialogue about how to bring them in under worker programs without having them "take American citizen's jobs." As Alabama found out, American citizens aren't pouring in to take over these thankless jobs.
if the federal govt is not doing its job (on immigration), can it be sued?
Mattpfl - legislating against Hispanic Americans??? HELLO!! They are NOT Hispanic Americans they are ILLEGAL INVADERS. NOT ONE person the GOP wants to deport is a Spanish AMERICAN, NOT ONE!!. It's racist people like you that always try the RACE card. Stop it doesn't work any more. What part of ILLEGAL do you not understand??
Oreo:
I respectfully disagree with your assertion that not one nperson they want to deport is spanish American. I would say this gentleman qualifies:
Mr. George Ibarra, 46, was born in Mexico but was raised since infancy in Arizona. In his late 20s he enlisted in the Marines and served three years on active duty, including time in Iraq, before being honorably discharged. On February 23, 2011 Department of Justice adjudicator Richard Phelps ruled in Eloy, Arizona that George Ibarra had by a preponderance of the evidence proven that he is indeed a citizen of the United States. Rather than apologize to Mr. Ibarra for previously wrongfully detaining him, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is holding Mr. Ibarra in solitary confinement at the Eloy Detention Center, in clear violation of the U.S. Constitution and a memorandum requiring Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to release anyone with "probative evidence" of U.S. citizenship.
He proved in court that he is indeed a citizen yet ICE still held him for deportation. I submit to you that he is indeed Spanish/Hispanic/Mexican American.
You said he was born in Mexico? He served but many non citizens serve. Just serving doesn't make you a US citizen. What evidence? I find this very hard to believe, there are some facts that you have not sharded with me? Somethings wrong with this. But, I stand by my statement: The USA doesn't legislate against Hispanic Americans! None of these illegals are AMERICANS!
The SC will most likely rule that the border is the federal government's busniness, not the states. In that case, I would suggest Arizona and other border states who wants border security to build a fence a few miles back from the border. That will make it a state's issue, not the feds.
The court rule however that state law enforcement has every right to ask for immigration papers or other forms of ID when pulled over for traffic stops.
And you will donate cash to that fund? Otherwise it is heaping even more economic woes onto border states.
Yes I would if I know that is what the money will be used for.
It is millions of dollars per quarter mile. How much you got? Really - it is not an easy fix.
Good. This is the way the system works. With SCOTUS guidelines the states can form laws that are fairly uniform instead of the current patchwork method.
The abject failures of Obama have led to a nation being torn apart from within.
All Obama has managed to accomplish is to sow discord amongst the People.
Obama is inept and his staff are a bunch of crooked, partisan hacks.
And as usual, most of you see this as Democrat versus Republican. The party bosses have done their jobs well, grasshopper. Take your eyes off the issues, and start calling each other names.
Mattpfl, I have not one problem with Hispanic Americans. I have all kinds of problems with Hispanic Mexicans that are here illegally. The same problems I have with the punk gang bangers that live down the street, and that moron in the yellow metric racer that goes by my house 2-3 times a day at a high rate of speed. They're breaking the law, they're trying to terrorize me, they're making themselves a nuisance, or they're costing me money. I got no time for any one of them. That ain't hating.
bobmck...you are correct, speaking only from where I live...They do not use child carseats, not even for 2 yrs and up. The law states that if an immigrant is sponsored, this is how most of the hispanic immigrants(caribbean) come here to RI, they must make atleast 125% of the poverty and or be supported by the sponsor entirely or make up the difference. If they do not comply with either then they must return home, which they do not. Instead, when they arrive, relatives and sponsors take then to social services to apply for and receive basic taxpayer funded welfare. Illegal, yes, stopped no, because the case workers they deal with are hispanic(note: 4yrs ago 15 were caught in a welfare fraud sting do just this). It ceased for awhile but is now back in full swing.
bobmck, see my post above. Just because illegal immigrants are crossing the Mexican/US border does not mean that they are all "Hispanic Mexicans". Many of those crossing that border are actually illegal immigrants from other Hispanic origin countries (or Asia) who have crossed THROUGH Mexico in their efforts to get to the US. That is why racial profiling doesn't work and that is what was declared unconstitutional by the federal courts. The law(s) as written, although not outright saying so, are geared to racial profiling of anyone who LOOKS hispanic. Are you ready to be stopped for no reason at all and demanded to show your US citizenship papers? Do you carry your official birth certificate with you at all times? That really is the ONLY true proof of citizenship for anyone born in this country. Legal immigrants do have their green cards or naturalization papers, but how many of them carry those official documents with them at all times? Once you become an American citizen, you should NOT have to carry that document with you. Driver's licenses, social security cards, and any other form of identification other than a birth certificate are all easily forged.
Well this is such a complicated issue because with out complication, negligence and duplicity by our favorite president and his cronies and boehner and his cronies then it becomes a clear cut case that is easily discerned and enforced. In other words federal enforcement of immigration laws is reprehensible and politically motivated. You throw in hyperbole, scapegoating, red herrings and the bath room sink from the left and viola we have community organizing compliments of our president. Both parties are responsible for this unconstitutional state of affairs.
I'm not a seer, nor do I own a tarot, but I have common sense and logic to, not guess, but to affirm the end result: The tea partier supreme farce will side with: Tea partiers, and not just with tea partiers, but since we all know that for the tea party and republican party to exist, they have to have zombies galore that obey their command, even if it would kill them, the result even Pee Wee Herman could solve this who done it.
The adage says: Birds of same feather, flock together. The racists have their racists symphatizers, ergo, they support each other. The mafias, when the police, D.A. are out to get them, form one front to fight and so on, well, tea partiers are no different, the retards support other retards and since the supreme farce is full of retards, well at least five of them, the outcome is more than expected, it's a done deal. Remember, you heard here before. You're welcome!
Demoflaps flock together also...they will follow each other over the cliff....no difference. Just because we disagree doesn't make us retards but to say we are makes you...well sort of ignorant. This line of garbage is getting old and now it is just amusing. I have been called everything in the book by fools that don't know me so who are you? Just because you are on the left doesn't make an instant genious now does it?
you are an idiot.
Hell No 568603
Logic? Common sense? Where are you hiding it? Is that a left over slogan from those that fled to Canada when times were tough to avoid the draft and their patriotic duty?
I'm not rich, but when I hit a raw nerve, I laugh so hard that I almost pee every time. Tea partiers, republicans, the KKK crowd along with their incest prone crowds can't handle the truth, ergo, what else can be expected, but killing the messenger? Just let me know how much I owe yo"all, or better yet, the check is in the mail. And now for those who made up lies to fit their agenda, let me say, I was a republican and voted for Ronald Reagan twice for president, but in my defense, I didn't know he was that cuckoo. He said, something I ignored then, that if Medicare passed as a law, we would become communists and look what happened, we become more elite, more for billionaires, it that could be possible. I quit the racist, republican party when the retard dynasty, AKA, Bush came on the scene and stayed away from politics until the retard pervert, drug addict stole the 2000 elections with the Don Corleone supreme farce's help. So, while I never been a democrat per se, I started supporting them when they were for we, the people. I thought that Obama was going to be the savior of our democracy, Constitution, but even though I had my suspicions, I was scared to death by that McSenile and retard, ergo, I chose the lesser of two evils, or so I thought at that time, but now that the results are in, Obama is another retard and war crminal and I will stop contributing to all parties. It's a waste of time and money, so I have decided to become an independent, where my morals can't and won't be outsourced to no one just like y'all. Before I go, let me quote Mr. T: I pity the fools!
Verbiage of an old acid-freak.
Obummer is insisting that regulating immigration is the job of the feds, not the states, but he is doing nothing about it. I have gotten to the point where I don't put anything past this Marxist. Maybe I'm turning into a conspiracist, but I have to wonder if this is part of his agenda. To do nothing, until things get so bad with the illegals, and only then will he want to "fix it" by hiring another "army" to control the masses. It gets easier and easier for me to envision another phase of a Nazi-like environment, and I really do hate thinking like this. If he gets another term, this country is SO over.
monkeybarrel said:
It gets easier and easier for me to envision another phase of a Nazi-like environment, and I really do hate thinking like this. If he gets another term, this country is SO over.
It's already over.
The Senate passed S1867 last Tuesday. If you haven't heard if it, it's also called the NDAA Act. S1867/NDAA sections 1031-1033 basically will give our government the right to have our military indefinitely detain anyone suspected of terrorist activity without charge or trial, American citizen or not, anywhere in the world, on home soil or off. And it's not just limited to anything directly affecting America--it's anyone accused or suspected of terrorist activities against American allies too, which can be interpreted to include conflicts that don't even involve America. The NDAA also gives the department of Defense $600 billion to implement these changes with. Senator Carl Levin (D) and Senator John McCain (R) wrote it, allegedly in secret, and it was sponsored into the House of Representatives by Representative Howard McKeon (R). The House of Representatives passed it in May, 32-96, and the senate passed it on Tuesday 93-7.Since the two versions of the bill are a little different, they just need to reconcile it and send it to President Obama to sign. Obama has said that he is going to veto it, but Congress can override the veto with a 2/3 vote.
The initial reaction is 'if it;s terrorists I don't care' but then you look at what DHS is calling terrorism these days; alternative media, animal rights activism, lawful acts of civil disobedience (think Rosa Parks refusing to give up her bus seat being arrested for terrorism without being charged, without given a trial, without access to a lwayer, for als long as the 'war on terror' lasts.) Those who stockpile food and weapons are also deemed terroristic, conspiracy theorists, and 'technology-enabled social/political activism.'
The government tried this 'indefinite detention without charge or trial' for the last ten years on illegal immigrants, legal immigrants, and US citizens that they could claim were 'illegal because they couldn't very a birth certificate was real.' The majority of the US population thought it was fine, no protests over loss of constitutional rights. Now they're expanding it to legal US citizens who they can claim are domestic terrorists for stockpiling food, advocating for animal rights, and similar reasons.
This country is over the minute that bill gets passed over Obama's veto.
This whole issue would be resolved were the illegal aliens to vote republican.
You think they would. They fled countries where the government was the great power and provider like Democrats want here.
Capitalism is the engine of equality, not government. Governments job is to make sure everyone can enjoy the fruits of what capitalism can provide and that it is not only for a select few.
Not enforcing the federal immigration laws on the books is tyranny by the administration - any administration. Mexico has changed their laws only recently - because America takes better care of their people than they do - and Mexican government would like our welfare state for their people to continue. It advances their country tremendously, at our expense. Constantly spewing party pawn propaganda, which only addresses some Americans, certainly far from all of them, serves the news agencies well, but not the American public. Think for yourself. Other people do.
Republicans don't want, and will never want, any votes from illegal aliens (who can't vote anyway). You know that, Bill H. And if you know that, why in hell did you write that comment? Well, the Supreme Court will now decide, and if the court leaves the States with no way to fight back against illegal traffic from aliens, there will be a civil war that will make everyone forget the civil war we had 150 years ago.
Obamas record of deports is a start but it ain't good enough. Let's get real and deal with this enormous problem NOW!
It is a shame that the Federal Government is using this for Political purposes. It is all about votes with the Hispanics. I am for legal immigration not a mass invasion of one race. Arizona is hard hit from this and the border states are suffering. Mexico does nothing to stop the flow-they need the gringo's welfare and money.
If the federal government has the responsibility to protect our borders and their laws apply (and must be enforced), then I just hope they apply the same logic to 'sanctuary cities' like Berkeley, Cambridge, etc.
OBama has deported more illegals than any previous administration! So what? It's still not enough! Those who have been deported two or three times are just let go from custody at the request of the FBI and commit murder as in a recent case reported on. How many are they counting as being deported 2 or 3 times, and just keep coming back to commit more crimes? Wasn't there a recent article that stated those the border patrol turns back are being counted as deportee's? Immigration Laws are on the books, this administration is trying to illegally void them through executive order! Power corrupts, and this is an example.
The Supreme Court is now more corrupt and a fascist part of our government than ever before (just like the other branches too.) And if you do not know already, here is why AGAIN.
Their Supreme Court ruling of 2010 allowing and defining Corporations to be considered legal person(s) in the eyes of the law for sole benefit of unlimited election campaign fund raising is as egregious as it gets. Their decisions at end of day are for benefit of elite over WE THE PEOPLE.
The Supreme Court decision coming up next year which will probably support unconstitutional health care MANDATE should not inevitably comes as a surprise either based on aforementioned.
LegalSin,
You are the epitome of ignorance.
The issue of the legal rights of corporations was first adjudicated by the Supreme Court in 1819. That ruling was upheld and further defined through a number of cases throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.
All the 2010 case did was to rule that the government could not limit the political SPEECH of corporations any more than it can that of individual citizens.
I read artical in Alabama where the farmers r losing money. Have no one to work their crop. The same people who complain about the immigrants will not work the fields. CA tried it and not a white person showed up. Don't ask the blacks because they did their share in slavery time. Because of this food price is rising. These states need to make sure taxes r being paid. We all know cheap labor is what these small business want. Make them do what is right by not paying under the table.
So the solution is to import our slaves through illegal immigration? Do we give them the same worker's rights as citizens or do we keep them as slaves? Do they get free education, social security, and other welfare programs or do we take away any protections? What do we call the system? Some form of slavery or Citizenry? Either these illegals have the same rights and protections we do (reward them for breaking the law) or they do not (which equates to voluntary exploitation.)
That is just the problem, business wants illegal immigration. Business is always working the
angles to line their pockets on the backs of other people and who better than an illegal immigrant. You can pay them less than minimum wage and threaten to have them deported if they tell anyone, it's leverage, it's the bread and butter of business.
The only reason that the Federal Governent allows an open door, open border immigration policy is to provide cheap labor and encourage a surplus of labor. This keeps wages down and unemployment up, these policies benifit a few at the expense of many.
We have 40 million plus foreign born immgrants here in the U.S. Most are here legally, this influx of people has come at a time when jobs have been outsourced and a large portion of our manufacturing infasrtucture has gone overseas, this has contributed to our failing economy.
robert f. I surmise that you are one of those "Internet statistician" that spew out a number and then justify it by going off topic to prove no point. There is a reason for Government Protection but it is not the "ignorant scenario you printed. The Government has been requiring SS# for all who claim Citizenry or hold a US Job. In every case of an illegal the SS# has in fact been Bogus. Once Social Security is collected/paid in the Bogus # creates "free money" that is....the Government does not have to return or account for that money. Government does not want wages held down either the poor pay very little to none and in most cases actually get back that which they paid in plus!. As for Infra-Structure it does not DOES NOT cause failing Economy. Infra-Structure is building roads, bridges, highway improvements etc That HAS NOT gone over seas. Your entire post has no truth or Fact let alone correct assumption.
All the more reason to kick-out te illegals and STOP **ALL** immigration.
LMAO this nation was based on immigration and will always be so. It is simply ignorant to even think that the deportation of all illegals is either possible or the best solution unless you still bring a newspaper to the outhouse with you to read and use.
The same people who refuse to recognize local police rights to question an illegal alien, simultaneously, approve the locals to enforce other federal laws such as reporting counterfeiters and their products as well as reporting local DV cases and gun offenders to federal authorities. No objections to cooperation there! When people support double standards they lose credibility.
@Ray-402
Yea, legal immigration. Do we open up the borders and let anyone come in? There is no difference between uncontrolled immigration and unenforced immigration and both are bad news economically. Watch your taxes go up and keep laughing.. or are you Senor Ray?
The SC said if a person is under 18 and kills somebody, it's OK.
The SC said if a company wants your property they can use the local government to take it.
Now the SC is going to protect law abiding American taxpayers from illegal aliens? Right.
Bend over American taxpayers, another large screw is headed your way.
yep. bend over american't go to alabama to pick up some tomatoes ....