Replies

The essence of the SCOTUS ruling is this statement:

“As a general rule, it is not a crime for a
removable alien to remain in the United States.”

Thus, AZ can check on an immigrant’s status, but we CANNOT detain him to do so.

Everything else was struck down because the Federal government, according to the US Supreme Court, doesn’t want to enforce their own laws and the state cannot make them do so.

According to the ruling, the federal government says it is illegal to hire an illegal, but the illegal has the right to try to work and the state cannot impose a penalty that Congress has not specifically approved of.

Overall, I’d call this ruling a disaster for state policing of illegal immigration. It means we have to trust Dingy Harry & Barry Obama to control the flood of Mexicans crossing our border and living here.

DAMN! Just DAMMIT!

This makes a mockery of the legal system. You can check the illegals papers, but can't do anything else and it is not illegal to be in the country. This is an invitation for Obama to import millions of illegals under his new dreamer order and to assure that they are registered to vote (illegal, but so what) in November.

RE: Arizona Decision -

Lot’s of sad faces here today, but I do think it was the constitutionally correct decision.

AZ cops can stop and check immigration status but can’t stop someone from “making a nod or gesture” outside of, say, a Home Depot on the off chance that that person might a) be looking for work and b) illegal.

We don’t want to make the same mistake that Dumb0’s supporters do; granting executive power to someone simply because we agree with the goal opens up the faucet to the next pres, with whom we disagree, uses that power for something that we don’t like.

Same here. Immigration is a Federal concern, even if, as with Dumb0, he chooses not to enforce it. We need the laws in place and constitutional so the next person who becomes pres wont’ abuse his authority - whether at the Fed or State level.

So if Arizona gave every illegal immigrant a bus ticket to NYC and a promise of a Debit card for 100 dollars as they get on the bus to NYC, that would be legal. Let Chucky Schummer explain why he's an Anti Mexican bigot when he wants them to stop. Let the streets of Manhattan become a crowded Mexican slum.

Open the border and get the buses rolling.

“It means we have to trust Dingy Harry & Barry Obama to control the flood of Mexicans crossing our border and living here.”

Which is why it was a disaster to elect them in the first place. If you want control over immigration - don’t elect Obama.

SCOTUS can only do what is constitutional, and federal control over immigration is constitutional.

Overall, I’d call this ruling a disaster for state policing of illegal immigration. It means we have to trust Dingy Harry & Barry Obama to control the flood of Mexicans crossing our border and living here.

Not quite; the problem is that the other options would make people go weak in the knees.
All a State [like AZ] has to do is declare a state of invasion, deploying its national guard and calling up its militias with shoot-to-kill authorization.
Furthermore, when the state does this it should further demand that the Federal government send aid; it is required to do so via Art 4, Sec 4 of the Constitution.
This puts them [the feds] in a bind, as they have three options:

Send help; highly unlikely because it opposes the open borders they love so much.
Drag their feet/refuse; in which case the rest of the nation will see exactly how much the feds will do. -- Politically disastrous; most likely.
Move against the state. -- Probably more likely than we would like.

The most interesting is, of course, the third option. There are three ways in which the opposition to the state could come:

Executive; they send the army, air force, marines to fire on US Citizens.
Judicial; the courts literally ruling that a State cannot defend itself.
Legislative; the Congress making laws targeting that state, or perhaps cutting all funding thereunto.

What's most interesting about all of those options is that they fall fairly nicely into the "giving aid and comfort" clause of the definition of Treason. Therefore, an entire branch's head could in one fell swoop, make it supremely easy to remove it's corruption.

Sadly though, people will reject the very idea of "going to war" straight out of hand.