Posted on 06/25/2012 7:50:07 AM PDT by TonyInOhio
The Supreme Court upheld a key part of Arizona's tough immigration law but struck down others as intrusions on federal sovereignty, in a ruling that gave both sides something to cheer in advance of November elections where immigration is a major issue.
The court backed a section of the Arizona state law that calls for police to check the immigration status of people they stop.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Which does have to make you wonder what in the world John Roberts was smoking at the time.
How in the world can you find a state enforcing federal law to be contrary to that law just because a current executive doesn’t feel like enforcing it?
“As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain in the United States.”
“Once again the liberal jurist always vote the liberal agenda first while conservative jurist do not. “
There are lots of libertarians who are pro-illegal. WSJ editorials are fun to read except for when they bring up this issue.
The left is already screaming “racist”,
Just shows how embedded playing the skin color card is in their thinking. It’s become totally automatic. Even when they get what they want, the first thing they say is “racist!”
“arizona exceeded it’s authority by trying to pass it’s own immigration laws...”
That’s right. You immigrate to the US, not Arizona.
I don't think so. I think they firmly supported some imagined power of the executive to ignore the law despite the constitution saying that the executive is to enforce the law of the land.
Arizona was "in trouble" for enforcing federal law in contravention of the executive's decision to ignore the law with forbids what we call illegal immigration. An executive who is allowed to ignore the law is call a despot, I believe.
This should be called the "Despotism Empowerment Decision" in the future.
They will go full circle when they get a ruling that supports a despot making up his own law. He can now ignore enforcing law, and in the future create law on whim. Sounds like old Rome to me.
>>I wouldn’t put too much stock on what the extreme left says<<
I’m not. But it’s fun to watch.
Where is that quote from?
I think, as a general rule, it is a crime for an illegal alien to be in the US, but it has been many years since we had a president and administration who intended to enforce existing immigration law.
I didn’t quote that. My post was #57.
If the executive can just decide not to enforce a law, the states (and its citizenry) are simply forced to take it?
“Second, had the ruling gone the other way, the individual states would have been able to create their own unique immigration laws. Would you *really* want that? Can you imagine the immigration policy of states like California or Massachusetts?”
You are correct. This opinion paves the way for the feds to take action against “sanctuary cities.” Getting the feds to do that places the obligation right back where it ought to be; as a political issue and changing the people running the show in DC.
Must we wait for the Feds to take action? That might be a long wait depending on who's in power. Can't someone bring suit now against a sanctuary city based on this ruling?
Here’s a plan:
Round-up illegals in those states whose state and federal reps. vote for more restrictive policies on illegals, securing the borders, etc. and send them to states whose reps vote for less border control, amnesty for illegals,etc.
And let’s not forget the home states of the members of the federal courts who come down AGAINST preserving our vanishing national character.
These clowns think it’s such a swell idea, let THEM live with these folks.
As cheap as I am, I’d even donate to such an effort.
But its AZ (or whichever state) that gets the shaft.
The first order of business for rino romney ( and I want this commitment NOW)( is to criminalize illegals being here. Once we get that done then we are back in business.
Romney won’t say anything to decrease that 25% Hispanic support.
Which, if true, invalidates current federal law.
Apparently, and it's been that way at least since Reagan, and maybe before. It just reached critical mass during the past ten or fifteen years, and spilled in many states where illegals had scarcely been noticeable before.
The only remedy seems to be a president who will enforce the law.
But a previous Arizona law requiring the use of E-verify and allowing the revocation of business licenses from businesses that hire illegals was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2011. - So, Arizona has gained some tools for enforcement over the past couple of years.
(Those two posts sort of ran together and I replied to the wrong one on that quote.)
Yep, the solution to the problem is a president who will enforce immigration law, but it's been quite a while since any president did. I don't even know the last one who did, certainly neither Bush nor Clinton.
What the heck does any of that have to do with the CONSTITUTIONALITY of those provisions?
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.