Skip to comments.Arizona Can't Do It; Washington Won't
Posted on 06/26/2012 5:56:22 AM PDT by Kaslin
President Barack Obama hailed the Supreme Court's 5-3 decision Monday that struck down most of Arizona's 2010 immigration law. In a statement released by the White House, however, the president said that he remains "concerned about the practical impact of the remaining provision of the Arizona law that requires local law enforcement officials to check the immigration status of anyone they even suspect to be here illegally."
All eight voting members of the Supreme Court upheld this provision, which requires that Arizona cops try to determine the immigration status of individuals who have been stopped for reasons not involving immigration.
Even though federal law requires legal immigrants to carry identification papers with them, open-border types have dubbed the Arizona provision "show me your papers." Even though the Arizona law requires that race not be a factor in any police actions conducted under the law, MSNBC's Chris Matthews calls that section of the law "the requirement that cops stop people because they look a certain way." Quoth the president, "No American should ever live under a cloud of suspicion just because of what they look like." No matter how much Arizonans improve the law, the left will maintain that it is about race and race alone.
The irony is that Obama has been a strong booster of the Secure Communities program, introduced by President George W. Bush, operated under U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and expanded under this administration. The program forwards fingerprints taken by local law enforcement to ICE, where officials check to see whether arrestees are in the United States legally. Obama is happy to have local law enforcement check on the immigration status of people it arrests, as long as only his feds make the decision over what to do -- or not do -- about it.
"A patchwork of state laws is not a solution to our broken immigration system," Obama intoned in his statement. That's Phony, Part 2.
"The White House hasn't sued San Francisco," a self-proclaimed sanctuary city, noted Jon Feere, legal policy analyst for the pro-enforcement Center for Immigration Studies, "but it's going after states that are trying to uphold the law."
I asked the Department of Justice to explain the administration's scruples on Arizona-versus-sanctuary-cities to me in 2010. A spokeswoman replied: "There's a difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law. That's what Arizona did in this case, and we believe it is an unconstitutional interference with the federal government's prerogative to set and enforce immigration policy."
Or, in this case, not enforce immigration policy. Clearly, the president objects only when states seek to bolster immigration law, not flout it.
As dissenting justice Antonin Scalia reasoned, "the sale of illegal drugs, for example, ordinarily violates state law as well as federal law, and no one thinks that the state penalties cannot exceed the federal."
Now, there is a case to be made for the argument that letting states enforce federal law can, as Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority, "undermine federal law." But it's a case best made by those able to ignore the administration's selective umbrage. What Obama is really saying: "Move over, Arizona. Only I have the right to undermine federal law."
There’s a constitutional fallback for a state that is invaded; it can wage war on its own. War has considerably fewer niceties than civil law as we know it. While this might mean tanks to some, I’d be happy if Arizona set up a huge trebuchet on the border facing south, and launched Mexican interlopers back into Mexico. (OK, give them a parachute so the landing isn’t quite so rough. We don’t want to part with all humaneness, after all.)
It’s well past time to start culling the corrupt Washington herd.
Checks and balances my Aunt Matilda.
After a night to think about this, it seems to me that Roberts has sided with piece-mealing decisions so that everyone gets something. That’s a political template for deciding court cases.
It’s troubling, of course, with ObamaCare.
It argues that the mandate will be struck down and maybe a few more provisions of it, but that plenty (most) of it will be left intact.
That will invite the Fed to finance it by other means, and with Obama just declared “despot in chief” by the Arizona fiasco, that means he’ll ignore Congress’ budget power and use, say, the defense budget + the medicare budget to finance a single payer financing of ObamaCare’s health provisions.
Watch out seniors, Obama’s coming after Medicare, Medicaid, and anything else that even hints of health money in it.
Between not wanting to make waves and trying to preserve a legacy, it seems the last thing that matters to the in-Justices, if at all, is the US Constitution as written and as they swore to uphold it. Scalia and Thomas excepted, SUPREMES ARE BOZOS.
I think Arizona should now start checking for immigration papers at all DUI checkpoints.
Throw it right back in SCOTUS’ face and give them a severe case of legal indigestion.
Guess the only alternative is for the people to do it!
Man, that’d be a thrill...
“FREE TREBUCHET RIDES!”
To get right to the point folks is the Prezzy is concerned is that the state might compile a list of illegals that could then be used to see if any voted.....
To get right to the point folks is that the Prezzy is concerned that the state might compile a list of illegals that could then be used to see if any voted.....
What Kennedy basically said the Federal government can decide on its own if they want to repel an invasion or not.
The Constitution expressly gives the Federal government no choice in the matter: that's their job and they have to do it.
Kennedy (and Roberts for god's sake) just gave a roadmap to any country that would like to invade and take over the United States: simply have your nationals walk in and install themselves as the citizenry, and take over. You're not allowed to fight back, especially if they aren't white people.
So indeed the states have an emergency right to repel an invasion. The Federal "government" has shown not just a disinterest in complying with it's Constitutionally mandated job, but an outright hostility to it.
Mexico is intentionally trying to control the U.S. Southwest in practicality if not in name. Brewer should simply mobilize the Arizona National Guard on a war footing and declare any incursions into the State as being something that will be repulsed militarily.
Let Kennedy write an opinion about that. And then stuff it where the sun don't shine.
When Mexico began passing out pamphlets on how to sneak into the USA, it let the cat out of the bag, if said feline ever had been hidden in the bag in the first place. Since this would mean losing Mexico’s best and brightest (as long as they didn’t have any conscience about what US citizens wanted) it had to be a deliberately hostile move.
Who says AZ can’t do it? They should set up their own program and ignore the ruling.
Pray for America
I’m nervous about the healthcare decision too based on this. If the Supremes rule in favor of this or mostly so, this will be the defining moment America “jumped the shark.” Some claim that America “jumped the shark” anywhere from 1865 to 2008, but it was not quite a sure thing, but if we lose this one, that will be the true defining moment. All I can say is I hear the twin Evenrudes idling up and I see Fonzie in my binoculars putting on his waterskis.
I mean, like how would Canada feel if Barack Obama had pamphlets on how to sneak into Canada printed and disseminated across the USA???
We’ve seen some feeble promises out of Mitt Romney to do such things as excuse all 50 states. Which he might or might not do, but you gotta know that Obama would assuredly never do.
They should take every illegal they detain, load them on buses and drop them off in Washington. Obama likes them so much he can deal with them personally.
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”
the ultimate fallback
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.