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."
An immigration invasion of white people? He'd hate it!
“Guess the only alternative is for the people to do it !”
What is that saying about stuff not being the federal government’s jurisdiction being reserved to the states or the people?
I wonder does that apply when the federal government chooses to flout the law?
Sure, when sheep drive coyotes.
The constitution spells out the role of the federal government is to protect our borders and defend against enemies foreign and domestic.
Curious. Congress acts as if it has no power to stop this lawlessness out of the executive branch.
Furthermore, congress holds the purse strings. Why these bozo's don't begin cutting off the life blood of Obama’s pet projects in the EPA, DHS, TSA and so forth just befuddles me.
Take any agreement or contract that has ever been written or agreed to and you can find one lawyer that will interpret it as understood by the signer.
And another lawyer who will interpret it differently and be willing to go to court to contest the other person’s interpretation.
Some contracts have even been designed so they could be contested, for the financial gain of the attorney.
This court decision may fall in this category.
So find a constitutional lawyer who will read into the decision that the federal government MUST, since the state of AZ cannot, enforce the immigration law as written by Congress.
That way illegals could be caught and no one's 'civil rights' would be violated as everyone is treated the same...
Scoutmaster - do you think this would work?
More Conservative Supreme Court justices is the only answer...GET RID OF OBAMA!
and get rid of the rats in the Senate and the House
The Constitutional law question is ‘above my pay grade,’ GOPJ. As a practical matter, however, I don’t know that the public’s willing to ‘show their papers’ on a regular basis, much less whether the manpower and budget is available.
You echoed my latest fears - cutting a big toe off the monstrosity instead of eviscerating it.
If the State doesn't do that - make it the same for all people in the State - Holder will sue the first time he thinks someone was asked BECAUSE he's Hispanic...
We know liberal elites want illegals here - we know they don't respect the law - there's got to be a way to stop them from forcing illegals on us.
Matthews is right on this - cops can't pick out certain people... it's against the law. But with my idea, that wouldn't be happening. They would check out everyone along a certain road - or every 5th car... something NOT race based. But can people vote away their rights? Or is that a right? You don't have to answer -I get the 'above pay grade' but you have a good feel for the law... well, better than that...
AZ should start a “catch and release” program for all felony warrants. All law enforcement in AZ should be told that if they pull someone over that’s wanted on a felony warrant to bring them to a holding center. Then they will be taken to the state border and released. Then the feds will be notified that they had their man but let him go the day before. And don’t tell them which state line they took them too.
Bottom line is obama has chosen one law he doesn’t want AZ to help enforce. AZ should tell him they believe choosing one law over another is “prejudiced” against all the other criminals and they don’t want to be accused of showing favoritism.
That is far fetched, but the invasion has already put Phoenix on the map as the kidnapping capitol of the world. (next to Mexico City). Now Obama has opened the flood gates, with his good will extended, to any maurader, militant, terrorist, theif, rapist, murderer, or anyone who has designs to reconsitute Mexico 1500.
Brewer does have the right and duty to call up the National Guard. The invasion has been going on for many years. Now the escalation is certain. What other options does Brewer have? This would set up a Fort Sumter scenario. And Obama has always fancied himself as a Lincoln-wannabe. This is quiet the pissing contest the Supreme Court has set up for us. Thanks for trashing the Precious Constitution. All in the world you had to do is be faithful to the Constitution....and you would not.
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.