[Political Junkie Too]

last time I checked, choosing to NOT execute those laws, and in fact to overtly break them, most certainly doesn’t entitle the executive to federal preemption over sovereign states that are desperately trying to defend their citizens FROM the result of the executives’ extra-legal actions.

Unfortunately, the federal courts said otherwise when Obama sued Arizona over their SB 1070 bill.

The court basically said that federal prosecutors had "prosecutorial discretion" over where to spend their efforts (e.g., which illegals to prosecute and/or deport), and any state law infringes on the federal agencies' authority to exercise discretion.

In other words, the court said that if a state like Arizona kept arresting illegal aliens on their own and then turning them over to Border Patrol or Homeland/Immigration, that forces those agencies to have to deal with the illegals which takes time and budget away from other priorities that they had the power to set.

Letting states arrest illegals forces priorities onto the federal government, which the courts overturned.

It's like the states are the serfs for the federal government and not the other way around, which is what the 9th and 10th amendments were supposed to be for.

-PJ

[grey_whiskers]

The court basically said that federal prosecutors had “prosecutorial discretion” over where to spend their efforts (e.g., which illegals to prosecute and/or deport), and any state law infringes on the federal agencies’ authority to exercise discretion.

Failure to enforce is passive.

Cutting barbed wire is active.