Posted on 06/26/2012 8:49:00 AM PDT by xzins
States seeking to take immigration enforcement into their own hands are facing an uphill climb, after the Supreme Court reined in Arizona's disputed law and the Obama administration followed by rescinding a key partnership allowing local police to enforce federal immigration rules. ...
The ruling left in place, though, a central plank that required local law enforcement during routine stops to check the immigration status of anyone they suspect is in the country illegally ...By Monday afternoon, the Department of Homeland Security had pulled back on a program known as 287(g), which allows the feds to deputize local officials to make immigration-based arrests.
...Officials said ICE will not respond to the scene unless the person in question meets certain criteria -- such as being wanted for a felony.
"We've lost the ability for states to take problems that they themselves are facing and do something about it," said Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, who represents one of several states that implemented their own Arizona-style laws.
"The heart of the bill was upheld -- unanimously," she said, vowing to move forward with implementation and take on any remaining legal challenges.
The federal government's stated reluctance, though, to respond to state-level calls pertaining to immigration checks could make it difficult for Alabama and other states to carry out those laws.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Could states rely on multiple illegalities to detain illegals? For example, if a speeder is also guilty of failure to pay child support, or failure to pay parking fines, can he not be detained?
Being illegally in the country is more egregious than failure to pay child support.
Could laws be revised to simply state that multiple offenses warrant detention of suspects with illegal immigration simply being one of many that would qualify?
Or, how about the multiple illegality of falsely utilizing state services?
Time to invoke the SSS technique.
I favor busing the invaders to Washington DC and dumping them off at either 1600 Pennsylvania Ave or 1 First Street, NE...
A congress with any stones would defund any agency which demonstrates a desire to aid and abet in law breaking.
When a government fails to govern any longer..
it is time to toss thaty gubamint on the trash heap.
November, bring gloves and shovels.
You talking about sublisting? If so, how would you go about it?
whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. - Declaration of Independence
Of more interest is the question of a return to the basic question of 1860. What happens when a state or group of states declares that certain federal acts are non binding on them and they will not recognize their legality. This question will, I think, retuen in the not distant future as regardless of the fate of Obamacare or the fate of Obama this year the centralizers and libs will never let go of their vision of a European style centralized state and all that goes with that. A real conflict of ‘visions’ is coming. All that is needed is the right piece of federal power grabbing and a governor or two with real political beliefs and the guts to back them up.
grievances against the king...in this case against one who thinks himself king.
At the same time, he’s doing what the last 2 presidents have done, permitting illegal immigration unchecked.
I have read that DHS only rescinded 287(g) with AZ, leaving it in place for all other states. If so, this is petty revenge, and could be spun that way against him.
Further, I see nothing wrong with giving illegals a 1-way plane tickets (screw buses, they can get off) to Chicago or the District of Criminals. Let THEM deal with it.
They can be “transported” (not deported) if they request to go back home. And given a choice between conviction for a multiple offense crime or a ride to the border, I’m guessing many will choose the “transportation”.
They don't dare do that because it costs a TON of money to house, feed, and prosecute detainees. And unfortunately there are whole economic sectors that depend on an unlimited pool of illegal labor, quietly working to subvert anything more than token enforcement.
It’s an insidious plot. I would love to see Hatch be thrown out of office today for being complicit in these policies.
See #14
White House A Sore Winner On Arizona Ruling
Posted 06/25/2012 07:07 PM ET
The Law: If there’s any doubt the Supreme Court upheld the most substantial elements of Arizona’s law to enforce U.S. immigration law, take a look at the scorched-earth response from the Obama administration to punish the state.
The Supreme Court voted 8-0 Monday to uphold a key provision of Arizona’s S.B. 1070 that requires state troopers to check the immigration status of people suspected of being in the U.S. illegally after they’ve been caught committing other crimes.
But after the Obama administration and its media allies crowed that the court ruling was a win, their fury over their loss on the one provision became obvious.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced that the administration would cut off ties to Arizona’s police and end provisions of seven 287(g) task force agreements that gave some Arizona police agencies powers to enforce immigration laws.
The vindictive, disproportionate response effectively isolates the state in terms of being far more stringent than anything the administration has inflicted on Burma, North Korea or Iran.....
How do the polls look for him?
Someone earlier recommended a trebuchet as the transportation mode.
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.