“Not so. Where are you getting this nonsense from?”
From the actual court decision? You are mistaken if you believe that the AZ law as passed is equivalent to the federal immigration law. It’s not, and that’s the bone of contention that you seem unwilling to address.
The AZ law is not a ‘carbon copy’ of the federal immigration law. The parts that were not found in the federal law were dismissed. The part that was, was upheld.
“The 289 (g) program requires state and local police to be trained by ICE to enforce to a limited degree immigration law. Now, ICE has taken away AZ’s 287 (g) authority.”
And what does that have to do with SCOTUS? Nothing. That has to do with Napolitano and the Obama administration.
“Under the Secure Communities program, which is not supposed to be voluntary, the police are supposed to forward the fingerprints of suspected and artested illegal aliens to DHS.”
Which is contrary to this SCOTUS ruling. Obama’s said he’s going to ‘selectively enforce the law’ which violates the equal protection clause. Arizona has standing now to sue the Feds for selective enforcement. Obama can’t simply ignore the cases it doesn’t want to deal with - it has to deal with any and all reports of illegal immigrants that are caught.
“They are effectively doing that by declaring war on AZ and depriving law enforcement of the needed tools to deal with an out of control illegal immigration problem that is bankrupting the state.”
Then that still doesn’t abrogate the right of the state to enforce federal immigration laws in AZ, as this decision handed down. AZ has a few legal remedies they ought to file them now and establish evidence of Obama’s stonewalling and refusal to enforce federal immigration laws.
“if §3 of the Arizona statute were valid, every Statecould give itself independent authority to prosecute federal registration violations,”
Scalia himself admits what I have continued to say concerning section 3.
“seems to me not so horrible and even less looming.”
Entirely his opinion and not based on fact.
“Scalia gets it; you don’t.”
Oh, I get Scalia’s dissent. He believes that it’s unimportant that the AZ law was not a carbon copy of the federal immigration laws. I see zero constructionist opinions.
Where is the opinion of Scalia that the states ought to have control of their own immigration based on the actual constitution? It’s a very weak dissent, and not up to his usual standards.
A Border Control Agent called into Rush today, very angry with the SCOTUS decision, since he believes that AZ law is in fact a carbon copy of the federal immigration laws. He referenced Title 8 of the United States Code section 1304 small e, everybody go look it up, says that if you're here illegally and you're not a citizen, you have to carry proof of that with you. The law's already on the books.
My honest question, since I don't know, is what do you see as the parts of the AZ law that are not a "carbon copy" of the federal law since it seems the Border Control Agent thinks the pertinent part is directly from federal law.
From the actual court decision? You are mistaken if you believe that the AZ law as passed is equivalent to the federal immigration law. It’s not, and that’s the bone of contention that you seem unwilling to address.
The AZ law is not a ‘carbon copy’ of the federal immigration law. The parts that were not found in the federal law were dismissed. The part that was, was upheld.
You couldn't be more wrong. I know Kris Kobach who drafted the law and have discussed it with him. The issue involved here in preemption and the impact of the Supremacy clause in the Constitution. Nothing in the AZ law is against federal law. The states are either entitites with rights as specified in the 9th and 10th Amendments or they are just administrative units of the federal government.
The Federal goverment is limited to enumerated powers. The states have rights as well, including enforcing federal immigration law. The AZ law does not violate or conflict with any federal laws. In virtually every aspect, AZ mirrors federal law.
And what does that have to do with SCOTUS? Nothing. That has to do with Napolitano and the Obama administration.
It has a lot to do with SCOTUS and the rationale used to justify the majority decision if you have read it. States have a role in enforcing federal immigration law. Immigration is not the sole province of the federal government. The states bear most of the costs of illegal immigration whether it is education, law enforcement, or welfare. The federal government is not doing its job. The 287(g) program was supposed to leverage state, local, and federal law enforcment resources. There are only 7,000 ICE agents. We have 12 to 20 million illegal aliens in this country. There are an estimated 2 million criminal aliens.
Which is contrary to this SCOTUS ruling. Obama’s said he’s going to ‘selectively enforce the law’ which violates the equal protection clause. Arizona has standing now to sue the Feds for selective enforcement. Obama can’t simply ignore the cases it doesn’t want to deal with - it has to deal with any and all reports of illegal immigrants that are caught.
Obama has been violating federal law with impunity. He started a back door amnesty involving 300,000 immigration cases. This was before the Dream Act. In 2010 and 2011 the Border Patrol union issued unanimously a no-confidence edict against Morton and his deputy. Why?
"This action reflects the growing dissatisfaction and concern among ICE employees and Union leaders that Director John Morton and Assistant Director Phyllis Coven have abandoned the Agency's core mission of enforcing United States Immigration Laws and providing for public safety, and have instead directed their attention to campaigning for programs and policies related to amnesty and the creation of a special detention system for foreign nationals that exceeds the care and services provided to most United States citizens similarly incarcerated.
It is the desire of our union within ICE and our employees to publicly separate ourselves from the actions of Director Morton and Assistant Director Coven and publicly state that ICE officers and employees do not SUppOI1 Morton or Coven, or their misguided and reckless initiatives, which could ultimately put many in America at risk.
So who is going to hold Obama accountable? Certainly not Congress.
Scalia wrote a first class dissent. I suggest you read it in its entirety. What was weak was the majority opinion. It is frightening. Our Constitution is being shredded and we have idiots defending it. If the same thing happens with Obamacare, you can kiss the Constitution good-bye. There is nothing the federal government can't do. There is no Rule of Law.