[joe fonebone]

I will try and remain civil to you, even though you obviously have no intention of being civil to me, or to even attempt to be civil, but, I will try...

First Item

Article 1, Section 8 of that pesky document, you know, that there constitution thingie, gives power over naturalization to the feds..... case law already settles that naturalization and immigration both fall under jurisdiction of the feds.. kinda period, like..

Second Item

All that there fancy legalese IS the decision... to try and remove it from the discussion is to base your decision on pure emotion... now, what other political group that we know of bases their decisions on pure emotions???

Your refusal to accept the so called “Legalese” proves your emotional based response.

Third Item

As I stated previously, the states attorney generals need to gather up all the damages caused their states by the refusal of the feds to enforce their own immigration laws, and SUE the feds, naming the people refusing to carry out the laws of the land by name, and making it as personal as possible and still maintain the government culpability..

Now I have given you a factual, non emotion based responses to all your questions... bet you cannot do the same

[jwalsh07]

You answered no questions I posed and the one attempt you made is simply wrong. The COnstitution is silent on immigration. Immigration and naturalization are not synonomous. Immigration regulation is a power that accrues to all sovereign entitities and in America we have a country and states that make up that country. All have the power to exclude the those they deem excludable so long as the states do not run afoul of specific laws enacted by Congress. I'm still waiting for you to post one of those.

And quit whining for peats sake. You got sarcasm because you gave sarcasm. Grow up.

PS: Are you a penumbra guy? Because every time the majority used the word "field" I was seeing penumbra.

[dirtboy]

As I stated previously, the states attorney generals need to gather up all the damages caused their states by the refusal of the feds to enforce their own immigration laws, and SUE the feds, naming the people refusing to carry out the laws of the land by name, and making it as personal as possible and still maintain the government culpability..

It goes beyond failure to enforce. The feds MANDATE that illegals be schooled, get food stamps and health care. Any such lawsuit would be hamstrung by the fact that the costs due to illegals are a MIX of damages due to failure to enforce and costs due to deliberately mandating.

Arizona was simply asking to enforce some of the federal laws that the feds often fail to enforce, either through being overworked or by deliberate sabotage such as what Obama did with his backdoor amnesty.

Arizona finds itself hindered by the votes of coastal liberals who are generally immune to the problems of rampant illegal immigration.

And that is what, IMO, Scalia was referencing regarding sovereignty of Arizona - if the feds won't enforce the law, Arizona will, because it bears the brunt of the problems.

Arizona is not seeking to set federal policy. Just have existing federal policy enforced. The damages caused by the failure of the fedgov to act go well beyond monetary.