Skip to comments.Ariz. migrant case could lead to sweeping changes
Posted on 04/26/2012 1:52:40 AM PDT by South40
PHOENIX (AP) The United States could see an official about-face in the coming months in how it confronts illegal immigration if the Supreme Court follows through on its suggestion that it would let local police enforce the most controversial part of Arizona's immigration law.
Over the last several years, states frustrated with America's porous borders, have rejected the long held notion that Washington is responsible for confronting illegal immigration and have passed a flurry of laws to let local police confront illegal immigration. The Supreme Court is poised in the coming months to let the states know whether they haven't crossed the line.
The justices strongly suggested Wednesday that they are ready to let Arizona enforce the most controversial part of its law, a requirement that police officers check the immigration status of people they suspect are in the country illegally.
(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...
It's only controversial to a jerk with a name like Jacques.
Arizona cops AND California cops routinely busted people for being in the country illegally up into the 1990s, when the La Racista mobsters started the chattering campaign about "a state cannot enforce de federal Eeem-eegration laws".
Which was a load of crap intended to defeat enforcement.
Now we need a Supreme Court decision to legitimize that which was routine for 100 years?
They cannot deport people. They can transfer folks to the Feds, and can hold them for the feds, but they can’t send them home.
Depending on local enforcement isn’t going to help, not in the short or the long run. Essentially it means that the war is lost. Now you’re depending on cities to enforce what the country will not.
I hope you can see why this strategy is a losing strategy. the Feds have to uphold the law.
Why can’t States enact laws to force their Congressional representatives to introduce and vote for impeachment of federal officials that do not enforce laws they have sworn to uphold?
“They can transfer folks to the Feds, and can hold them for the feds, but they cant send them home.”
IIRC, Florida threatened to send the Haitians washing ashore in the 1990s up to Washington DC if they weren’t assisted in dealing with them. The governor was furious that he wasn’t supposed to take action while they turned southern Florida into another Haiti.
Immigration is an enumerated power of the federal government according to the US constitution. The Federal government has the obligation to establish a ‘uniform standard of naturalization’. Having patchwork enforcement, state by state is unconstitutional. Obama has an obligation to enforce the law through deportation of those who are caught and found here illegally. The states have the legal right to sue the US federal government over anyone who has been caught, sent to the federal government, and released, only to be caught again in the same state.
That is the best route to go at this point in time. Do what sheriff Joe is doing, arrest them, hold them until the feds show up to claim them. If the feds don’t show up, then continue to hold them. They don’t have legal access to the system the way that US citizens do, the rights that US citizens have do not apply to them.
The longer that Obama refuses to uphold the law, the longer the states can hold those detained.
That’s 100 percent legal and fulfills the constitutional obligation that the states have to the federal government.
Sending them all to DC which is fed jurisdiction, that’s the only responsibility that the states have. States (and cities), don’t have a choice in the matter, they have to enforce the federal immigration laws. They cannot turn a blind eye to them and ignore what the law says. Anyone found in the country illegally, they have an obligation to detain them and hold them until the feds come for them.
It’s no different from say counterfeiting.
I think the state wanted help with the financial burden of caring for them; because of the upheaval in Haiti at the time, the fed gov. didn’t want to send them back, so the state wanted money to provide for them (and I believe they got it after the threat to send them to DC).
Well I guess the states should leave to the Feds the enforcement of all sorts of federal laws.
The States should stop enforcing drug laws, environmental laws, transportation laws.
Just think of all the federal laws that locals take care of
Obama could solve illegal immigration in two seconds. All he has to do is be reelected and they’ll all leave for better job prospects in Mexico.
So, what authority are they operating under?
Most federal law is administered, in part, by state and local authorities and always has been.
Give you an idea how this goes down. We had a neighbor here who was a car salesman and "dealer". He discovered that he could sell a lot more cars if he focused on dope dealers and simply quit reporting sales over $10,000 to the federales. Over time he worked out quite a scheme.
One evening our very long cul-de sac was jammed with cop cars ~ starting with the FBI, Treasury, Postal Inspectors, Military Police, Park Police, Virginia State Police, Maryland State Police, West Virginia State Police, and representatives of every municipal authority and sheriff's department for 100 miles around.
He'd kept records. The cops were there to get them, or help identify them, and they dismantled the interior of the house removing the records he'd hidden behind the walls for years and years.
It was a multi-jurisdictional bust.
I didn't see any LA RAZA or ACLU demonstrators or lawyers present.
We pretend that "immigration" Is among the enumerated powers of the federal government but initially it wasn't. Take a look at what the constitution said about "importing such persons' before 1828 ~
You probably imagine the United States was a very popular place for folks to emigrate to in the early 1800s ~ but it wasn't. You had to be rather desperate to want to come here. The sea voyage was very dangerous and most of our great cities had not yet been cleared of the malarial swamps that killed people by the thousands every year.
A climate disaster in Europe that occurred repeatedly throughout the 1800s made America very popular ~ when the choice was death by starvation or a voyage to Baltimore or Halifax.
Not if the president and executive branch refuse to enforce immigration law, as has been the case at least since Reagan. The feds refusal to enforce the law allows cities to follow their "sanctuary city" policies of ignoring illegal aliens in their jurisdictions.
” Now we need a Supreme Court decision to legitimize that which was routine for 100 years? “
And that’s the real scandal here. The feds have to step up and do their job. It doesn’t do us any good if one city enforces it and another does not. If one state fails to enforce it, the chain is only as strong as the weakest link.
This is why it’s a federal issue at the core.
That was also before such folks qualified for welfare, etc.
The real problem isn’t the legal immigration, it’s the handouts. Get rid of the handouts and you’ll see the productive come to America.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.