Homeland Security suspends immigration agreements with Ariz. police

The Washington Times ^ | June 25,2012 | By Stephen Dinan

[Hojczyk]

The Obama administration said Monday it is suspending existing agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws, and said it has issued a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls reporting illegal immigrants that the Homeland Security Department may get from Arizona police.

Administration officials, speaking on condition they not be named, told reporters they expect to see an increase in the number of calls they get from Arizona police — but that won’t change President Obama’s decision to limit whom the government actually tries to detain and deport.

“We will not be issuing detainers on individuals unless they clearly meet our defined priorities,” one official said in a telephone briefing.

The official said that despite the increased number of calls, which presumably means more illegal immigrants being reported, the Homeland Security Department is unlikely to detain a significantly higher number of people and won’t be boosting personnel to handle the new calls.

[cherry]

yes, absolutely....vote bamey in again....it makes me want to upchuck the way this lawless evil administration kills our country in so many ways every day of the year....

[alwaysconservative]

I agree that we need to publicize the problem. How about if they take a picture of every single detainee for the police records, and publish in the newspaper the names and addresses of every single person who gets stopped and who gets released because ICE would not confirm whether or not they were illegal? That way, if (or when) any of those people commit more serious crimes, the story is ready to run, with photos.

[DallasSun]

katiedidit.....states are not sovereign. Period.

[GeorgeWashingtonsGhost]

Check out Los Angeles Police Department's TOP TEN MOST WANTED..
No whites. No blacks:

http://www.lapdonline.org/top_ten_most_wanted

[katiedidit1]

“Justice William H. Rehnquist explained that “States historically have been sovereign” in the area of law enforcement, which in the Court’s opinion required narrow interpretations of the Commerce Clause and Fourteenth Amendment.” States have the right to protect their citizens from crimials

[alwaysconservative]

Thank you for that info; it is pretty chilling. But notice that citizenship status is not mentioned except in one or two cases.

[alwaysconservative]

Thank you for that info; it is pretty chilling. But notice that citizenship status is not mentioned except in one or two cases.

[DallasSun]

With all due respect to Justice Rehnquist, federal law trumps state law. No state is sovereign..as they belong to the “united” states...to be sovereign would deem them autonomous. No state is such. Again, it is the “united” states that bears this to be true. Thanks for the discussion though. Was thought provoking and I did research it to make sure I was correct. I was so much more sure of myself in my 20’s and 30’s than I am in my 60’s. Should someone question me, I hit the research on most things. Just to make sure. Thanks again, Katie. Have a great day.