Posted on 05/21/2010 10:48:41 AM PDT by angelcindy
A top Department of Homeland Security official reportedly said his agency will not necessarily process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona authorities.
John Morton, assistant secretary of homeland security for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, made the comment during a meeting on Wednesday with the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune, the newspaper reports. "I don't think the Arizona law, or laws like it, are the solution," Morton told the newspaper. The best way to reduce illegal immigration is through a comprehensive federal approach, he said, and not a patchwork of state laws. The law, which criminalizes being in the state illegally and requires authorities to check suspects for immigration status, is not "good government," Morton said.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Then you haven’t read all of my posts.
Are you from AZ?
Google is your friend.
This is the third fed law he has chosen on his own to ignore.
He doesn’t need a supreme court.
I’ve read enough of your crap.
Another good reason why the feds need to be fired.
And judging by Arpaio's enemies -- (Marxists, ACLU traitors, college sophomores, Obamaheads, La Raza, and you) -- Arpaio brews a sweet blend of enemies.
Here's to you... bottoms up!
This from a President and federal executive who swore before us to uphold our laws...."so help me God"
The time to impeach has arrived.
Actually it does, because if the Feds went tit for tat, they would have more money and AZ would have less. Contrast this to say California, a state that pays more into the fed than it receives in return, which of course would mean that the fed would lose money.
Of course, our system is designed that way. The law books are so incredibly huge and convoluted, FedGov gets to pick and choose which laws to enforce, which essentially gives them arbitrary power over freemen.
There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. --Ayn Rand
Since you and others are starting to talk impeachment, it's time to discuss the questions that are naturally subsequent to such a call: How do you plan on getting a majority in the house to impeach? Assuming that you could possibly find those votes, say after the next election, how do you plan on getting 67 senators on board? Newsflash, even in a scenario most favorable to Republicans, there will be no super-majority in the senate.
Yes, and a well-timed conflict could seriously disrupt the conservative realignment that the November bunker-busting elections would otherwise bring. This is a time for cooler heads to prevail.
Better yet - round them up and dump them on the White House lawn.
Let me get this right...
It’s the Federal law that states pay for the education of ALL students in their state irregardless of legal status
Only the Feds can export illegals
and they will not export the illegals state enforcement catches?
How unfair is that??
Yes - lawlessness abounds...and is increasing.
BUT...
He is also pushing the lines that we want pushed. We want a State that in not meekly subordinate to the Federal Government. We want it robust in its powers and in constant conflict against federal encroachment.
Given our choice, Arpaio would not be point man in the conflict but he is an acceptable substitute. At his age he is not looking for a populist power base and he is redefining and enhancing the power of the state. We'll take the bad because the good is worth it.
We are being intentionally and carefully pushed into that dangerous place. Our reactions, all posted here in living color, are fully anticipated and accounted for. We need to be very careful in our response. We need to somehow get outside the box.
Oh, I like. AZ gets it’s point across and starves the federal beast of what it needs to function:tax revenues.
Sabe is the resident idiot of this thread. On long threads like such as this, there is bound to be a squishy turd in the punchbowl.
This is what happens when the press doesn’t publish facts about a candidate.
That said, you’re 100% correct about turning the Constitution inside out.
Obama wants people to get mad and violently protest. That way he can arrest all his opponents and set himself up as dictator.
LOL!
Well, the ‘squishy turd’ has met up with one of FR’s more nasty hard cases.
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.