PDA

View Full Version : Nat'l Security AP Source: Feds suing to stop Ariz. immigrant law (today)


petegz28
07-06-2010, 10:03 AM
BOB CHRISTIE (AP) - Associated Press Writer PHOENIX The U.S. Justice Department is filing a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Arizona's tough new law targeting illegal immigrants.
The planned lawsuit was confirmed to The Associated Press by a Justice Department official with knowledge of the plans. The official didn't want to be identified before a public announcement planned for later Tuesday.

The lawsuit will argue that Arizona's new measure requiring state and local police to question and possibly arrest illegal immigrants during the enforcement of other laws, like traffic stops, usurps federal authority.

Tuesday's action has been expected for weeks. President Barack Obama has called the state law misguided. Supporters say it is a reasonable reaction to federal inaction on immigration.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9GPKR5O0&show_article=1

CoMoChief
07-06-2010, 10:05 AM
The fact that the federal govt wants to sue AZ for this simply means the BO admin has absolutely NO intentions in securing the border.

The Mad Crapper
07-06-2010, 10:06 AM
BOB CHRISTIE (AP) - Associated Press Writer PHOENIX The U.S. Justice Department is filing a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Arizona's tough new law targeting illegal immigrants.


Well.. that didn't take long. Boy, when B.O. puts his mind to doing something, it gets done.

Mr. Plow
07-06-2010, 10:08 AM
The fact that the federal govt wants to sue AZ for this simply means the BO admin has absolutely NO intentions in securing the border.


Exactly what I was thinking.

petegz28
07-06-2010, 10:08 AM
The fact that the federal govt wants to sue AZ for this simply means the BO admin has absolutely NO intentions in securing the border.

That's about right. And I see a huge backlash heading for Obama on this one. WTF can this guy possibly say to justify this?

Obama: It's the Fed Gov's job to enforce immigration law.

AZ: Ok, but you aren't doing it so we passed our own law.

Obama: You can't do that, it's our job.

AZ: But you aren't doing your job and we are the one's paying for it.

Obama: Ok, I will send some troops down and help.

AZ: Where are the troops? Where is the help? Why aren't you doing your job?

Obama: **** you! I'm suing your ass!!!

The Mad Crapper
07-06-2010, 10:12 AM
Day 80 of the oil spill. Can't get nothing done there.

blaise
07-06-2010, 10:25 AM
The fact that the federal govt wants to sue AZ for this simply means the BO admin has absolutely NO intentions in securing the border.

No, it means, after they've received the results from several consulting firms, they determined there's more to be gained in his next election by demonizing Arizona's law and portraying himself as a savior from racism than there is from allowing the state to keep the law on the books.

Hydrae
07-06-2010, 10:50 AM
The lawsuit will argue that Arizona's new measure requiring state and local police to question and possibly arrest illegal immigrants during the enforcement of other laws, like traffic stops, usurps federal authority.

I know I tend to take a naive approach to things at times but I thought power started with the people, went to the state and then to the feds. Of course I know this is an outdated viewpoint but I really didn't think we were founded as a top down power set up in this country.

orange
07-06-2010, 10:54 AM
I know I tend to take a naive approach to things at times but I thought power started with the people, went to the state and then to the feds. Of course I know this is an outdated viewpoint but I really didn't think we were founded as a top down power set up in this country.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Rooster
07-06-2010, 10:55 AM
That's about right. And I see a huge backlash heading for Obama on this one. WTF can this guy possibly say to justify this?

Obama: It's the Fed Gov's job to enforce immigration law.

AZ: Ok, but you aren't doing it so we passed our own law.

Obama: You can't do that, it's our job.

AZ: But you aren't doing your job and we are the one's paying for it.

Obama: Ok, I will send some troops down and help.

AZ: Where are the troops? Where is the help? Why aren't you doing your job?

Obama: **** you! I'm suing your ass!!!

LMAO That pretty much sums it up.

Donger
07-06-2010, 11:00 AM
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

How exactly is this law unconstitutional (if that is what you are suggesting)?

orange
07-06-2010, 11:04 AM
AZ: Ok, but you aren't doing it so we passed our own law.

Wrong. The Feds ARE enforcing the law, just not to Arizona's liking. But AZ is just one voice in 50 - they don't get to dictate national law or its enforcement.

Not even the other border states support them - TX has rejected the law while CA and NM have gone farther including boycotts.

HonestChieffan
07-06-2010, 11:06 AM
Wrong. The Feds ARE enforcing the law, just not to Arizona's liking. But AZ is just one voice in 50 - they don't get to dictate national law or its enforcement.

Not even the other border states support them - TX has rejected the law while CA and NM have gone farther including boycotts.


You cannot be this stupid.

orange
07-06-2010, 11:07 AM
How exactly is this law unconstitutional (if that is what you are suggesting)?

In the areas in which it intrudes on Federal immigration law. Don't ask ME to file the Justice Department's brief here; it's taken them (a team of professionals) two months to put it together.

When it's released, I'll be happy to go over it.

Donger
07-06-2010, 11:08 AM
In the areas in which it intrudes on Federal immigration law. Don't ask ME to file the Justice Department's brief here; it's taken them (a team of professionals) two months to put it together.

When it's released, I'll be happy to go over it.

I'm not sure it intrudes at all. It helps. Unless, of course, you are suggesting that the federal government does not want help from local law enforcement?

orange
07-06-2010, 11:10 AM
I'm not sure it intrudes at all. It helps. Unless, of course, you are suggesting that the federal government does not want help from local law enforcement?

The Justice Department apparently thinks otherwise.

That's what makes court cases.

The Mad Crapper
07-06-2010, 11:12 AM
Wrong. The Feds ARE enforcing the law, just not to Arizona's liking.

LMAO

Donger
07-06-2010, 11:14 AM
The Justice Department apparently thinks otherwise.

That's what makes court cases.

Well of course Obama's JD thinks that. He's already stated that this law is "misguided."

I look forward to reading their argument, because I can't think of a single one.

Bob Dole
07-06-2010, 11:34 AM
The fact that the federal govt wants to sue AZ for this simply means the BO admin has absolutely NO intentions in securing the border.

Hell no. He's counting on all those votes after they grant them all citizenship.

petegz28
07-06-2010, 11:34 AM
Wrong. The Feds ARE enforcing the law, just not to Arizona's liking. But AZ is just one voice in 50 - they don't get to dictate national law or its enforcement.

Not even the other border states support them - TX has rejected the law while CA and NM have gone farther including boycotts.

Oh give me a break. I hate to brek the news to you, orange, but almost 70% of the country supports AZ in this.

Yea, CA has gone so far on their boycotts but they won't boycott the water and energy they such out of AZ. ;)

petegz28
07-06-2010, 11:35 AM
Well of course Obama's JD thinks that. He's already stated that this law is "misguided."

I look forward to reading their argument, because I can't think of a single one.

This is the same JD that threw out the Black Panther case even after a court had found them guilty.

Oucho Cinco
07-06-2010, 11:36 AM
Well of course Obama's JD thinks that. He's already stated that this law is "misguided."

I look forward to reading their argument, because I can't think of a single one.

The Gov of AZ sees illegals pouring across the border. Obama see's potential votes pouring across the line.

I suggest the Senate and Congress stop all foreign aid to Mexico until the surge of illegals cease. It may not happen until after November's elections and maybe not even then, but how long can the U.S. survive the basic invasion of the U.S. by Mexico?

How many illegals are coming through Mexico that are not Mexican but part of Al Queda?

petegz28
07-06-2010, 11:38 AM
The Gov of AZ sees illegals pouring across the border. Obama see's potential votes pouring across the line.

I suggest the Senate and Congress stop all foreign aid to Mexico until the surge of illegals cease. It may not happen until after November's elections and maybe not even then, but how long can the U.S. survive the basic invasion of the U.S. by Mexico?

How many illegals are coming through Mexico that are not Mexican but part of Al Queda?

Well Obma has given the illegals and whatever other criminals want it, 350 acres of AZ land.

The Mad Crapper
07-06-2010, 11:38 AM
How many illegals are coming through Mexico that are not Mexican but part of Al Queda?

I don't have a hard number, but I would guess around the same percentage of Columbia grads.

LMAO

Donger
07-06-2010, 11:43 AM
Aha. The DoJ will argue that the Arizona law usurps federal authority. Usurp is defined as "exercising authority wrongly."

ForeverChiefs58
07-06-2010, 11:43 AM
the opposition is usually just coming from places with a lot of immigrants or misguided people voicing their complaints...and a few shakira fans that care what she thinks.

orange
07-06-2010, 11:47 AM
Oh give me a break. I hate to brek the news to you, orange, but almost 70% of the country supports AZ in this.


Give ME a break. With 70% they could easily pass a NATIONAL Arizona-like law, right over Obama's veto.

Why don't they?

vailpass
07-06-2010, 11:51 AM
obama continues to add to his legacy as most worthless POTUS in history. Rather than offering a solution the empty suit sues his own state. Rather than standing in and taking charge the puppet dances to whatever tune his string-pullers are playing.

The elected leader stands by and watches as his states stagger from the burden of illegals yet he offers no solution, no work-around, no assistance. Instead he plays politics at the behest of his supervisors.

KC Dan
07-06-2010, 11:52 AM
Give ME a break. With 70% they could easily pass a NATIONAL Arizona-like law, right over Obama's veto.

Why don't they?Because they already have a much tougher Federal Az-type law but our Fed refuses to enforce it. Nice try

CoMoChief
07-06-2010, 11:52 AM
Wrong. The Feds ARE enforcing the law, just not to Arizona's liking. But AZ is just one voice in 50 - they don't get to dictate national law or its enforcement.

Not even the other border states support them - TX has rejected the law while CA and NM have gone farther including boycotts.

:LOL:

Come the fuck on, man.

petegz28
07-06-2010, 11:53 AM
Give ME a break. With 70% they could easily pass a NATIONAL Arizona-like law, right over Obama's veto.

Why don't they?

OMFG, are you seriously asking this? Are you really trying to equate the politics behind illegal immigration with reason??? You smoked some good shit this morning, didn't you?

orange
07-06-2010, 11:54 AM
Because they already have a much tougher Federal Az-type law but our Fed refuses to enforce it. Nice try

Do tell. What exactly is this "much tougher" law that the Feds refuse to enforce? You don't have to spell out the whole thing - just the "much tougher" parts.

Oucho Cinco
07-06-2010, 11:55 AM
Give ME a break. With 70% they could easily pass a NATIONAL Arizona-like law, right over Obama's veto.

Why don't they?

You are kidding aren't you? With the defectiveocrats in the lead right now they will do anything the impotent leader of the nation tells them to do.

orange
07-06-2010, 11:56 AM
OMFG, are you seriously asking this? Are you really trying to equate the politics behind illegal immigration with reason??? You smoked some good shit this morning, didn't you?

No, why don't the Arizona reps simply bring a tougher law to Congress? I'm sure they would find significant support - and if your 70% were at all realistic, they could easily ride it to passage.

Donger
07-06-2010, 11:56 AM
Give ME a break. With 70% they could easily pass a NATIONAL Arizona-like law, right over Obama's veto.

Why don't they?

It sure would help if the GOP controlled Congress. I suppose you didn't support the 2005 Immigration Act?

ForeverChiefs58
07-06-2010, 11:57 AM
Oh give me a break. I hate to brek the news to you, orange, but almost 70% of the country supports AZ in this.

Yea, CA has gone so far on their boycotts but they won't boycott the water and energy they such out of AZ. ;)

The other 30% are morons like Peggy West that doesn't even know where arizona is located on a map, and yellowish orange chicken with his portrait avatar and orangutan thoughts.ROFL

petegz28
07-06-2010, 11:59 AM
The fact of the matter is both sides of the isle have their own political reasons for not doing jack shit about the border. But for orange to try and equate the reason the people want something done with the inaction of congress is hillarious.

orange
07-06-2010, 11:59 AM
It sure would help if the GOP controlled Congress. I suppose you didn't support the 2005 Immigration Act?

The GOP controlled Congress ... and the Presidency ... and the Supreme Court ... for six years. What did they do?

petegz28
07-06-2010, 12:00 PM
The GOP controlled Congress ... and the Presidency ... and the Supreme Court ... for six years. What did they do?

They didn't do anything, which is why the base left them. Or at least one of the primary reasons. Which fully blows a huge whole in your argument that if the people wanted something done about it congress would act. The fact of the matter is the people do want something done about it and congress doesn't.

KC Dan
07-06-2010, 12:01 PM
Do tell. What exactly is this "much tougher" law that the Feds refuse to enforce? You don't have to spell out the whole thing - just the "much tougher" parts.
US Code Title 8
TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER II > Part IX > § 1357
§ 1357. Powers of immigration officers and employees
(a) Powers without warrant
Any officer or employee of the Service authorized under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General shall have power without warrant—
(1) to interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States

AZ LAW
For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation

The Az law at least attempts to mitigate possible racial profiling the US code does not. one example...

Donger
07-06-2010, 12:04 PM
The GOP controlled Congress ... and the Presidency ... and the Supreme Court ... for six years. What did they do?

They didn't have the balls, obviously, to accept the cries of racism.

orange
07-06-2010, 12:10 PM
US Code Title 8
TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER II > Part IX > § 1357
§ 1357. Powers of immigration officers and employees
(a) Powers without warrant
Any officer or employee of the Service authorized under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General shall have power without warrant—
(1) to interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States

AZ LAW
For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation

The Az law at least attempts to mitigate possible racial profiling the US code does not. one example...

Your example doesn't really apply. While the immigration officer is empowered to interrogate, the AZ law goes MUCH farther. The fact that you only quoted the preamble doesn't change that.

I have addressed this before in detail. Link added.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=6772467&postcount=36

petegz28
07-06-2010, 12:12 PM
You example doesn't really apply. While the immigration officer is empowered to interrogate, the AZ law goes MUCH farther. The fact that you only quoted the preamble doesn't change that.

I have addressed this before in detail. Link coming.

The AZ law is not what you are trying to make it out to be. They cannot just stop anyone for no reason and ask them for "their papers". The Fed Gov can.

orange
07-06-2010, 12:14 PM
The Fed Gov can.

No, they can't.

Read the quote just above: "under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General"

orange
07-06-2010, 12:17 PM
They didn't have the balls, obviously, to accept the cries of racism.

You seem to be conveniently overlooking the fact that they (the House) THREW OUT Bush's guest worker program which would have gotten the thing passed.

REPUBLICAN Bush's guest worker program.

I think my point is pretty clear that, even in the GOP, draconian measures are not all that popular. 70% would have seen that law passed.

bkkcoh
07-06-2010, 12:19 PM
The other 30% are morons like Peggy West that doesn't even know where arizona is located on a map, and yellowish orange chicken with his portrait avatar and orangutan thoughts.ROFL

No, they are the illegals....

orange
07-06-2010, 12:21 PM
The other 30% are morons like Peggy West that doesn't even know where arizona is located on a map, and yellowish orange chicken with his portrait avatar and orangutan thoughts.ROFL

There you go shitting on the floor again. Bad doggie! I'm going to have get you diapers.

petegz28
07-06-2010, 12:22 PM
You seem to be conveniently overlooking the fact that they (the House) THREW OUT Bush's guest worker program which would have gotten the thing passed.

REPUBLICAN Bush's guest worker program.

I think my point is pretty clear that, even in the GOP, draconian measures are not all that popular. 70% would have seen that law passed.

That's because it was seen as amnesty.

petegz28
07-06-2010, 12:24 PM
Look, orange, the fact is our elected officials, on both sides, cannot sit there and say shit like "we are going to ask the people who have broken the law to come forward, pay a fine, pay back taxes and learn english" and expect people to believe that shit.

Donger
07-06-2010, 12:25 PM
You seem to be conveniently overlooking the fact that they (the House) THREW OUT Bush's guest worker program which would have gotten the thing passed.

REPUBLICAN Bush's guest worker program.

I think my point is pretty clear that, even in the GOP, draconian measures are not all that popular. 70% would have seen that law passed.

What on Earth is draconian about any guest worker program? Sure, the Republicans opposed it, because it wasn't draconian at all.

blaise
07-06-2010, 12:25 PM
Who cares what the GOP did years ago? What does that have to do with the opposition to the AZ law right now? Did the GOP create a time machine to send Bush to the future to sue AZ over their laws or something?

ForeverChiefs58
07-06-2010, 12:26 PM
There you go shitting on the floor again. Bad doggie! I'm going to have get you diapers.

sorry about that, every time I read one of your posts I shit because I can't believe you are for real.

petegz28
07-06-2010, 12:26 PM
Who cares what the GOP did years ago? What does that have to do with the opposition to the AZ law right now? Did the GOP create a time machine to send Bush to the future to sue AZ over their laws or something?

Exactly. The fact is the majority of the people wanted something done then and want something done now.

orange
07-06-2010, 12:27 PM
What on Earth is draconian about any guest worker program? Sure, the Republicans opposed it, because it wasn't draconian at all.

I guess I didn't make myself clear. I'm not saying the guest worker program is draconian - quite the opposite.

I'm saying that by cutting out the guest worker program, they made that bill more draconian and less popular and guaranteed its failure.

petegz28
07-06-2010, 12:29 PM
I guess I didn't make myself clear. I'm not saying the guest worker program is draconian - quite the opposite.

I'm saying that by cutting out the guest worker program, they made that bill more draconian and less popular and guaranteed its failure.

Less popular with who? I'll telly ou who. Other politicans. But not the people.

orange
07-06-2010, 12:29 PM
Who cares what the GOP did years ago? What does that have to do with the opposition to the AZ law right now? Did the GOP create a time machine to send Bush to the future to sue AZ over their laws or something?

Somebody said "everything would be different if the GOP was in" and I pointed out that the GOP WAS in and nothing is different.

I'm sorry if that elementary logic is too tough for you to follow.

vailpass
07-06-2010, 12:30 PM
Let's put it to a national vote and see what we get.

orange
07-06-2010, 12:31 PM
sorry about that, every time I read one of your posts I shit because I can't believe you are for real.

Why don't you give us a dissertation on the deep meaning of everyone's avatar. That's about all your suited for.

blaise
07-06-2010, 12:31 PM
Somebody said "everything would be different if the GOP was in" and I pointed out that the GOP WAS in and nothing is different.

I'm sorry if that elementary logic is too tough for you to follow.

I'm saying it's irrelevant to the opposition to the AZ law. It's not like I quoted your post, you moron. It was related to the topic of the thread. I'm sorry if you have so much sand in your vagina that you feel the need to cry about it.

orange
07-06-2010, 12:31 PM
Let's put it to a national vote and see what we get.

We do that - every four years. We got Obama, believe it or not.

Donger
07-06-2010, 12:31 PM
I guess I didn't make myself clear. I'm not saying the guest worker program is draconian - quite the opposite.

I'm saying that by cutting out the guest worker program, they made that bill more draconian and less popular and guaranteed its failure.

Right, because the Democrats don't want tough immigration policy.

blaise
07-06-2010, 12:31 PM
Why don't you give us a dissertation on the deep meaning of everyone's avatar. That's about all your suited for.

No Huff Post articles to link today?

orange
07-06-2010, 12:32 PM
Exactly. The fact is the majority of the people wanted something done then and want something done now.

Then they should elect huge majorities of anti-immigration candidates and get the job done.

Voila'.

The Mad Crapper
07-06-2010, 12:35 PM
Then they should elect huge majorities of anti-immigration candidates and get the job done.

Voila'.

Anti-Illegal Immigration. And it will never work, candidates need funding and the money comes from COC Rockefeller Republican types who endorse dick heads like John McCain.

orange
07-06-2010, 12:36 PM
Right, because the Democrats don't want tough immigration policy.

Neither did Bush, apparently.

The Mad Crapper
07-06-2010, 12:38 PM
Neither did Bush, apparently.

Which is why we have states that are fed up finally do what Arizona did.

vailpass
07-06-2010, 12:39 PM
We do that - every four years. We got Obama, believe it or not.

Actually I still can't believe it. You feeling any buyer's remorse over obama?

You know full well I meant a national vote on anti-illegal immigration law, not the empty suit POTUS whose ears are bigger than his accomplishments.

Better still let's determine exacty what a state's rights are to defend and secure it's borders.

Donger
07-06-2010, 12:39 PM
Neither did Bush, apparently.

Indeed.

orange
07-06-2010, 12:41 PM
Actually I still can't believe it. You feeling any buyer's remorse over obama?

You know full well I meant a national vote on anti-illegal immigration law, not the empty suit POTUS whose ears are bigger than his accomplishments.

I didn't vote for him. I didn't like his lack of leadership qualities.

I'm a Hillary man who reluctantly pulled the lever for McCain.

McCain who, by the way, was also NOT in favor of draconian anti-immigration measures.

vailpass
07-06-2010, 12:43 PM
I didn't vote for him. I didn't like his lack of leadership qualities.

I'm a Hillary man who reluctantly pulled the lever for McCain.

McCain who, by the way, was also NOT in favor of draconian anti-immigration measures.

1. Anti-ILLEGAL immigration. Stop your hate mongering through disinformation.
2. Who determined anything to be Draconian? Is that your label?
3. You are a "Hillary man"? OK then.

go bowe
07-06-2010, 12:45 PM
How exactly is this law unconstitutional (if that is what you are suggesting)?under the preemption doctrine, it clearly is and will be adjudicated as unconstitutional by the courts in accordance with legal precedents over a long period of time and by the specific language of the federal statutes concerning immigration...

all that talk about discrimination was misguided from a legal point of view, well at least my point of view...

but preemption will overturn the az law...

Donger
07-06-2010, 12:46 PM
I didn't vote for him. I didn't like his lack of leadership qualities.

I'm a Hillary man who reluctantly pulled the lever for McCain.

McCain who, by the way, was also NOT in favor of draconian anti-immigration measures.

What is draconian about the AZ law? Or the federal law?

Donger
07-06-2010, 12:48 PM
under the preemption doctrine, it clearly is and will be adjudicated as unconstitutional by the courts in accordance with legal precedents over a long period of time and by the specific language of the federal statutes concerning immigration...

all that talk about discrimination was misguided from a legal point of view, well at least my point of view...

but preemption will overturn the az law...

But isn't that predicated on a state law being in conflict with federal law?

orange
07-06-2010, 12:50 PM
1. Anti-ILLEGAL immigration. Stop your hate mongering through disinformation.
2. Who determined anything to be Draconian? Is that your label?
3. You are a "Hillary man"? OK then.

Here's a hypothetical proposal.

(a) For about 150 years, there were NO limits on immigration from Mexico/Latin America. Let's say we go back to that. NO LIMITS.
(b) The path to citizenship will remain difficult but doable. Employers will be required to comply with all safety, minimum wage, etc. laws for all their employees, including immigrants/migrants.
(c) These new immigrants/migrants will have to pay all their taxes etc., just like natives.
(d) People here now who broke the law will have to do time/pay a fine. (I prefer the latter - jail=money out; fine=money in).
(e) Big crackdown on cheating employers and illegals who don't turn themselves in effectively eliminates the ILLEGAL problem.


Now then - FOR or AGAINST?

orange
07-06-2010, 12:52 PM
But isn't that predicated on a state law being in conflict with federal law?

Not necessarily. Some areas of law are simply pre-empted from the states by federal action, even if there is no direct conflict.

Donger
07-06-2010, 12:53 PM
Here's a hypothetical proposal.

(a) For about 150 years, there were NO limits on immigration from Mexico/Latin America. Let's say we go back to that. NO LIMITS.
(b) The path to citizenship will remain difficult but doable. Employers will be required to comply with all safety, minimum wage, etc. laws for all their employees, including immigrants/migrants.
(c) These new immigrants/migrants will have to pay all their taxes etc., just like natives.
(d) People here now who broke the law will have to do time/pay a fine. (I prefer the latter - jail=money out; fine=money in).
(e) Big crackdown on cheating employers and illegals who don't turn themselves in effectively eliminates the ILLEGAL problem.


Now then - FOR or AGAINST?

For all but (a).

orange
07-06-2010, 12:54 PM
What is draconian about the AZ law? Or the federal law?

Not letting enough immigrants/migrants in. They wouldn't be coming if there wasn't work for them.

For all but (a).

Which is exactly my point. We need to let in a lot more immigrants or guest workers. Immigrants GROW the country. People are "The Wealth of Nations."

The Mad Crapper
07-06-2010, 12:54 PM
Not letting enough immigrants/migrants in. They wouldn't be coming if there wasn't work for them.

ROFL

Donger
07-06-2010, 12:57 PM
Not letting enough immigrants/migrants in. They wouldn't be coming if there wasn't work for them.



Which is exactly my point. We need to let in a lot more immigrants or guest workers. Immigrants GROW the country. People are "The Wealth of Nations."

Really? With a 10% unemployment rate among US citizens, you want MORE immigrants (legal or illegal)?

orange
07-06-2010, 12:59 PM
Really? With a 10% unemployment rate among US citizens, you want MORE immigrants (legal or illegal)?

Do you realize that we used to PAY people to come here and work?

The recession is not forever. And all those immigrants - they're also MORE consumers. Which is a good thing when there's a shortfall in demand.

Donger
07-06-2010, 01:02 PM
Do you realize that we used to PAY people to come here and work?

The recession is not forever. And all those immigrants - they're also MORE consumers. Which is a good thing when there's a shortfall in demand.

Sure. But that was when the country was under populated. I don't think that is the case now.

I'm all for legal immigration, but not without limits, and especially not unskilled.

The Mad Crapper
07-06-2010, 01:05 PM
Sure. But that was when the country was under populated. I don't think that is the case now.

Wasn't America racist back then? ROFL

F'n moonbats they just make shit up as they go along.

vailpass
07-06-2010, 01:12 PM
Here's a hypothetical proposal.

(a) For about 150 years, there were NO limits on immigration from Mexico/Latin America. Let's say we go back to that. NO LIMITS.
(b) The path to citizenship will remain difficult but doable. Employers will be required to comply with all safety, minimum wage, etc. laws for all their employees, including immigrants/migrants.
(c) These new immigrants/migrants will have to pay all their taxes etc., just like natives.
(d) People here now who broke the law will have to do time/pay a fine. (I prefer the latter - jail=money out; fine=money in).
(e) Big crackdown on cheating employers and illegals who don't turn themselves in effectively eliminates the ILLEGAL problem.


Now then - FOR or AGAINST?


Void for vagueness.

petegz28
07-06-2010, 01:15 PM
Not letting enough immigrants/migrants in. They wouldn't be coming if there wasn't work for them.



Which is exactly my point. We need to let in a lot more immigrants or guest workers. Immigrants GROW the country. People are "The Wealth of Nations."

Yeah, cause it isn't like we don't let them such off the social welfare tit or anything.

orange
07-06-2010, 01:16 PM
Void for vagueness.

Donger managed to figure it out.

You're not going to let a limey ;) show you up, are you?

petegz28
07-06-2010, 01:16 PM
Do you realize that we used to PAY people to come here and work?

The recession is not forever. And all those immigrants - they're also MORE consumers. Which is a good thing when there's a shortfall in demand.

Yeah, those consumers have a whole section here in KC of shops with nothing but Spanish names, (no english translation at all), for them to wire money back to Mexico.

go bowe
07-06-2010, 01:16 PM
But isn't that predicated on a state law being in conflict with federal law?not necessarily, although it looks to me that the courts would probably hold that there is a conflict with federal law...

preemption in the field of immigration law includes constitutional preemption (in this case, the constitutional power of congress to regulate immigration and the constitutional supremacy clause)...

then there is what's called field preemption where congress has "occupied" the field of immigration law by specific language in several immigration statutes...

while there is honest disagreement, i think the az law will probably be found invalid under all three tests...

orange
07-06-2010, 01:18 PM
Yeah, those consumers have a whole section here in KC of shops with nothing but Spanish names, (no english translation at all), for them to wire money back to Mexico.

People do what they want with their money. It's called "freedom." Americans used to favor it.

petegz28
07-06-2010, 01:19 PM
People do what they want with their money. It's called "freedom." Americans used to favor it.

Well sure. They were allowed to come here illegally, free of consequence, so why not, heh?

go bowe
07-06-2010, 01:22 PM
Let's put it to a national vote and see what we get.you'll get court cases declaring that congress, under it's constitutional authority has preempted the field...

i'm not sure that national plebiscites are contemplated under existing law, but even if there were one, it probably would not supersede the constutional authority of congress in the field of immigraion...

i see your point though...

petegz28
07-06-2010, 01:26 PM
I'll lay some casino cash that the more Obama fights this, and particularly if he gets this law shot down there will be a huge lashback on him.

Donger
07-06-2010, 01:29 PM
not necessarily, although it looks to me that the courts would probably hold that there is a conflict with federal law...

preemption in the field of immigration law includes constitutional preemption (in this case, the constitutional power of congress to regulate immigration and the constitutional supremacy clause)...

then there is what's called field preemption where congress has "occupied" the field of immigration law by specific language in several immigration statutes...

while there is honest disagreement, i think the az law will probably be found invalid under all three tests...

Interesting. Thanks.

orange
07-06-2010, 02:24 PM
... and, here it is:


Plaintiff, the United States of America, by its undersigned attorneys, brings this civil action for declaratory and injunctive relief, and alleges as follows:

INTRODUCTION
1.
In this action, the United States seeks to declare invalid and preliminarily and permanently enjoin the enforcement of S.B. 1070, as amended and enacted by the State of Arizona, because S.B. 1070 is preempted by federal law and therefore violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.
2.
In our constitutional system, the federal government has preeminent authority to regulate immigration matters. This authority derives from the United States Constitution and numerous acts of Congress. The nation’s immigration laws reflect a careful and considered balance of national law enforcement, foreign relations, and humanitarian interests. Congress has assigned to the United States Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, and Department of State, along with other federal agencies, the task of enforcing and administering these immigration-related laws. In administering these laws, the federal agencies balance the complex – and often competing – objectives that animate federal immigration law and policy. Although states may exercise their police power in a manner that has an incidental or indirect effect on aliens, a state may not establish its own immigration policy or enforce state laws in a manner that interferes with the federal immigration laws. The Constitution and the federal immigration laws do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country.
3.
Despite the preeminent federal authority and responsibility over immigration, the State of Arizona recently enacted S.B. 1070, a sweeping set of provisions that are designed to “work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens” by making “attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local government agencies in Arizona.” See S.B. 1070 (as amended by H.B. 2162). S.B. 1070’s provisions, working in concert and separately, seek to deter and punish unlawful entry and presence by requiring, whenever practicable, the determination of immigration status during any lawful stop by the police where there is “reasonable suspicion” that an individual is unlawfully present, and by establishing new state criminal sanctions against unlawfully present aliens. The mandate to enforce S.B. 1070 to the fullest extent possible is reinforced by a provision allowing for any legal resident of Arizona to collect money damages by showing that “any official or agency . . . [has] adopt[ed] or implement[ed] a policy” that “limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws . . . to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.”
4.
S.B. 1070 pursues only one goal – “attrition” – and ignores the many other objectives that Congress has established for the federal immigration system. And even in pursuing attrition, S.B. 1070 disrupts federal enforcement priorities and resources that focus on aliens who pose a threat to national security or public safety. If allowed to go into effect, S.B. 1070’s mandatory enforcement scheme will conflict with and undermine the federal government’s careful balance of immigration enforcement priorities and objectives. For example, it will impose significant and counterproductive burdens on the federal agencies charged with enforcing the national immigration scheme, diverting resources and attention from the dangerous aliens who the federal government targets as its top enforcement priority. It will cause the detention and harassment of authorized visitors, immigrants, and citizens who do not have or carry identification documents specified by the statute, or who otherwise will be swept into the ambit of S.B. 1070’s “attrition through enforcement” approach. It will conflict with longstanding federal law governing the registration, smuggling, and employment of aliens. It will altogether ignore humanitarian concerns, such as the protections available under federal law for an alien who has a well-founded fear of persecution or who has been the victim of a natural disaster. And it will interfere with vital foreign policy and national security interests by disrupting the United States’ relationship with Mexico and other countries.
5. The United States understands the State of Arizona’s legitimate concerns about illegal immigration, and has undertaken significant efforts to secure our nation’s borders. The federal government, moreover, welcomes cooperative efforts by states and localities to aid in the enforcement of the nation’s immigration laws. But the United States Constitution forbids Arizona from supplanting the federal government’s immigration regime with its own state-specific immigration policy – a policy that, in purpose and effect, interferes with the numerous interests the federal government must balance when enforcing and administering the immigration laws and disrupts the balance actually established by the federal government. Accordingly, S.B. 1070 is invalid under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution and must be struck down.

20 more pages: http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/az-complaint.pdf


More here: http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/July/10-opa-776.html

philfree
07-06-2010, 02:31 PM
The fact that the federal govt wants to sue AZ for this simply means the BO admin has absolutely NO intentions in securing the border.

Just listening to an attourney on TV and she said BO is just wanting to piggy back his agenda with the law suit. What his agenda is in regards to the AZ border with Mexico is I have no clue.

PhilFree:arrow:

vailpass
07-06-2010, 02:32 PM
"The United States understands the State of Arizona’s legitimate concerns about illegal immigration, and has undertaken significant efforts to secure our nation’s borders."

Ole.

Donger
07-06-2010, 02:33 PM
... and, here it is:


Plaintiff, the United States of America, by its undersigned attorneys, brings this civil action for declaratory and injunctive relief, and alleges as follows:

INTRODUCTION
1.
In this action, the United States seeks to declare invalid and preliminarily and permanently enjoin the enforcement of S.B. 1070, as amended and enacted by the State of Arizona, because S.B. 1070 is preempted by federal law and therefore violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.
2.
In our constitutional system, the federal government has preeminent authority to regulate immigration matters. This authority derives from the United States Constitution and numerous acts of Congress. The nation’s immigration laws reflect a careful and considered balance of national law enforcement, foreign relations, and humanitarian interests. Congress has assigned to the United States Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, and Department of State, along with other federal agencies, the task of enforcing and administering these immigration-related laws. In administering these laws, the federal agencies balance the complex – and often competing – objectives that animate federal immigration law and policy. Although states may exercise their police power in a manner that has an incidental or indirect effect on aliens, a state may not establish its own immigration policy or enforce state laws in a manner that interferes with the federal immigration laws. The Constitution and the federal immigration laws do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country.
3.
Despite the preeminent federal authority and responsibility over immigration, the State of Arizona recently enacted S.B. 1070, a sweeping set of provisions that are designed to “work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens” by making “attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local government agencies in Arizona.” See S.B. 1070 (as amended by H.B. 2162). S.B. 1070’s provisions, working in concert and separately, seek to deter and punish unlawful entry and presence by requiring, whenever practicable, the determination of immigration status during any lawful stop by the police where there is “reasonable suspicion” that an individual is unlawfully present, and by establishing new state criminal sanctions against unlawfully present aliens. The mandate to enforce S.B. 1070 to the fullest extent possible is reinforced by a provision allowing for any legal resident of Arizona to collect money damages by showing that “any official or agency . . . [has] adopt[ed] or implement[ed] a policy” that “limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws . . . to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.”
4.
S.B. 1070 pursues only one goal – “attrition” – and ignores the many other objectives that Congress has established for the federal immigration system. And even in pursuing attrition, S.B. 1070 disrupts federal enforcement priorities and resources that focus on aliens who pose a threat to national security or public safety. If allowed to go into effect, S.B. 1070’s mandatory enforcement scheme will conflict with and undermine the federal government’s careful balance of immigration enforcement priorities and objectives. For example, it will impose significant and counterproductive burdens on the federal agencies charged with enforcing the national immigration scheme, diverting resources and attention from the dangerous aliens who the federal government targets as its top enforcement priority. It will cause the detention and harassment of authorized visitors, immigrants, and citizens who do not have or carry identification documents specified by the statute, or who otherwise will be swept into the ambit of S.B. 1070’s “attrition through enforcement” approach. It will conflict with longstanding federal law governing the registration, smuggling, and employment of aliens. It will altogether ignore humanitarian concerns, such as the protections available under federal law for an alien who has a well-founded fear of persecution or who has been the victim of a natural disaster. And it will interfere with vital foreign policy and national security interests by disrupting the United States’ relationship with Mexico and other countries.
5. The United States understands the State of Arizona’s legitimate concerns about illegal immigration, and has undertaken significant efforts to secure our nation’s borders. The federal government, moreover, welcomes cooperative efforts by states and localities to aid in the enforcement of the nation’s immigration laws. But the United States Constitution forbids Arizona from supplanting the federal government’s immigration regime with its own state-specific immigration policy – a policy that, in purpose and effect, interferes with the numerous interests the federal government must balance when enforcing and administering the immigration laws and disrupts the balance actually established by the federal government. Accordingly, S.B. 1070 is invalid under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution and must be struck down.

20 more pages: http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/az-complaint.pdf


More here: http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/July/10-opa-776.html

Again, I don't see how it interferes with federal law (or policy) at all.

blaise
07-06-2010, 02:35 PM
"The United States understands the State of Arizona’s legitimate concerns about illegal immigration, and has undertaken significant efforts to secure our nation’s borders."

Ole.

It makes you wonder why they bring up immigration reform then. Doesn't the President think immigration reform is needed? If so, that would seem to me to be an acknowledgement that the system is not functioning properly.

orange
07-06-2010, 02:35 PM
US Code Title 8
TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER II > Part IX > § 1357


Your example doesn't really apply. While the immigration officer is empowered to interrogate, the AZ law goes MUCH farther. The fact that you only quoted the preamble doesn't change that.

I have addressed this before in detail. Link added.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=6772467&postcount=36


You can now read the actual complaint. Sections 40-45 (pages 16-18) address this exactly. Why, it's as if they're channelling ME.

http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/az-complaint.pdf

orange
07-06-2010, 02:37 PM
Again, I don't see how it interferes with federal law (or policy) at all.

Read the "20 more pages*." It's layed out in great detail.


* and ten supporting documents

Donger
07-06-2010, 02:41 PM
Wow.

36.
S.B. 1070 (as amended) attempts to second guess federal policies and re-order federal priorities in the area of immigration enforcement and to directly regulate immigration and the conditions of an alien’s entry and presence in the United States despite the fact that those subjects are federal domains and do not involve any legitimate state interest.

Donger
07-06-2010, 02:43 PM
Read the "20 more pages*." It's layed out in great detail.


* and ten supporting documents

S.B. 1070 pursues only one goal – “attrition” – and ignores the many other objectives that Congress has established for the federal immigration system. And even in pursuing attrition, S.B. 1070 disrupts federal enforcement priorities and resources that focus on aliens who pose a threat to national security or public safety. If allowed to go into effect, S.B. 1070’s mandatory enforcement scheme will conflict with and undermine the federal government’s careful balance of immigration enforcement priorities and objectives. For example, it will impose significant and counterproductive burdens on the federal agencies charged with enforcing the national immigration scheme, diverting resources and attention from the dangerous aliens who the federal government targets as its top enforcement priority. It will cause the detention and harassment of authorized visitors, immigrants, and citizens who do not have or carry identification documents specified by the statute, or who otherwise will be swept into the ambit of S.B. 1070’s “attrition through enforcement” approach. It will conflict with longstanding federal law governing the registration, smuggling, and employment of aliens. It will altogether ignore humanitarian concerns, such as the protections available under federal law for an alien who has a well-founded fear of persecution or who has been the victim of a natural disaster. And it will interfere with vital foreign policy and national security interests by disrupting the United States’ relationship with Mexico and other countries.

orange
07-06-2010, 02:44 PM
Wow.

36.
S.B. 1070 (as amended) attempts to second guess federal policies and re-order federal priorities in the area of immigration enforcement and to directly regulate immigration and the conditions of an alien’s entry and presence in the United States despite the fact that those subjects are federal domains and do not involve any legitimate state interest.


S.B. 1070 (as amended) attempts to second guess federal policies and re-order federal priorities in the area of immigration enforcement and to directly regulate immigration and the conditions of an alien’s entry and presence in the United States despite the fact that those subjects are federal domains and do not involve any legitimate state interest.

The Mad Crapper
07-06-2010, 02:44 PM
I think we need to have a separate place to put all the illegals--- for example, Mexico.

HonestChieffan
07-06-2010, 02:49 PM
Federals will determine what is a legitimate interest of a state? This should be good.

vailpass
07-06-2010, 02:57 PM
What a useless, do-nothing empty suit obama has proven to be. Instead of rolling up his sleeves and taking charge, enacting a work-around until a long-term solution can be reached he sits back and has his DOJ sue in an effort to garner the brown vote.
What a puke.

Donger
07-06-2010, 03:07 PM
Okay, first one:

"it will impose significant and counterproductive burdens on the federal agencies charged with enforcing the national immigration scheme"

You mean like actually arresting and deporting illegals? That too much of a burden?

Donger
07-06-2010, 03:08 PM
Second:

"It will cause the detention and harassment of authorized visitors, immigrants, and citizens who do not have or carry identification documents specified by the statute."

Tough shit.

Donger
07-06-2010, 03:08 PM
Three:

"It will conflict with longstanding federal law governing the registration, smuggling, and employment of aliens."

How?

Donger
07-06-2010, 03:09 PM
Four:

"It will altogether ignore humanitarian concerns, such as the protections available under federal law for an alien who has a well-founded fear of persecution or who has been the victim of a natural disaster."

Don't care.

KC Dan
07-06-2010, 03:09 PM
Three:

"It will conflict with longstanding federal law governing the registration, smuggling, and employment of aliens."

How?by not giving them their own US land and passageway to free access.

Donger
07-06-2010, 03:09 PM
Five:

"And it will interfere with vital foreign policy and national security interests by disrupting the United States’ relationship with Mexico and other countries."

Is this a f*cking joke?

HonestChieffan
07-06-2010, 03:10 PM
What natural disaster is Arizona going to focus on? Other than Obama being elected that is.

orange
07-06-2010, 03:22 PM
One: ... Two: ... Three: ... Four: ... Five: ...

I'm betting the courts won't find these arguments nearly so easy to blow off. In fact, I'm thinking the supporters of this law know that it's going down... I don't see anyone saying "bring it on!"

Donger
07-06-2010, 03:23 PM
I'm betting the courts won't find these arguments nearly so easy to blow off. In fact, I'm thinking the supporters of this law know that it's going down... I don't see anyone saying "bring it on!"

The author of the AZ seems pretty confident.

orange
07-06-2010, 03:24 PM
The author of the AZ seems pretty confident.

Which author would that be? The one in New York?

Make that Kansas City, I guess. Kobach seems to be the main culprit.

go bowe
07-06-2010, 03:26 PM
Okay, first one:

"it will impose significant and counterproductive burdens on the federal agencies charged with enforcing the national immigration scheme"

You mean like actually arresting and deporting illegals? That too much of a burden?yes it is too much of a burden...

immigration enforcement officials do not have unlimited budgets and manpower...

their resources must be prioritized and they have chosen to deal with terrorists and criminals first...

responding to huge numbers of inquiries about immigration status for example would necessarily divert agency resources away from the established priorities, as stated in the complaint...

illegals in arizona or terrorists and criminals, you pick...

Donger
07-06-2010, 03:27 PM
Which author would that be? The one in New York?

The guy from UMKC.

Donger
07-06-2010, 03:28 PM
yes it is too much of a burden...

immigration enforcement officials do not have unlimited budgets and manpower...

their resources must be prioritized and they have chosen to deal with terrorists and criminals first...

responding to huge numbers of inquiries about immigration status for example would necessarily divert agency resources away from the established priorities, as stated in the complaint...

illegals in arizona or terrorists and criminals, you pick...

Increase the funding to meet the threat.

They are all criminals.

dirk digler
07-06-2010, 03:28 PM
Aha. The DoJ will argue that the Arizona law usurps federal authority. Usurp is defined as "exercising authority wrongly."

I think this is the winning argument. The biggest concern is you can't have 50 separate immigration laws.

go bowe
07-06-2010, 03:29 PM
Second:

"It will cause the detention and harassment of authorized visitors, immigrants, and citizens who do not have or carry identification documents specified by the statute."

Tough shit.tough shit perhaps, but congress and the supremes have decided that it matters, according to the complaint...

the brief will go into the legal niceties much more than the complaint, however...

Donger
07-06-2010, 03:31 PM
I think this is the winning argument. The biggest concern is you can't have 50 separate immigration laws.

It isn't a separate immigration law. It's a law that encourages enforcement of federal law (concurrently) and also makes it a state crime to be illegal.

Donger
07-06-2010, 03:33 PM
tough shit perhaps, but congress and the supremes have decided that it matters, according to the complaint...

the brief will go into the legal niceties much more than the complaint, however...

IIRC, the AZ law only requires a valid AZ driver's license for proof of legality.

dirk digler
07-06-2010, 03:34 PM
It isn't a separate immigration law. It's a law that encourages enforcement of federal law (concurrently) and also makes it a state crime to be illegal.

Exactly it makes it a state crime to be illegal. You could have CA make it a state law that all illegals are legal.

Donger
07-06-2010, 03:36 PM
Exactly it makes it a state crime to be illegal. You could have CA make it a state law that all illegals are legal.

That would be usurping federal law. Federal law states that it is illegal to enter the country without approval. AZ is just agreeing with the federal government.

go bowe
07-06-2010, 03:37 PM
Three:

"It will conflict with longstanding federal law governing the registration, smuggling, and employment of aliens."

How?the specifics of how are pretty much spelled out in the complaint...

put (too) simply, changing the federal requirements in those areas = conflict with the judgment and policy decisions of congress according to statute and many decisions of the supremes over the years...

Donger
07-06-2010, 03:39 PM
the specifics of how are pretty much spelled out in the complaint...

put (too) simply, changing the federal requirements in those areas = conflict with the judgment and policy decisions of congress according to statute and many decisions of the supremes over the years...

I read through it VERY quickly, so I'd welcome specifics.

blaise
07-06-2010, 03:39 PM
Exactly it makes it a state crime to be illegal. You could have CA make it a state law that all illegals are legal.

How does it work now, do state law enforcement officers not detain illegal immigrants if they're found to be illegals? I don't know the answer. It would seem to me that if a state law enforcement officer discovered an illegal alien he would have some sort of responsibility to enforce the law, even if it is the Federal Government's ultimate responsibility. Or am I wrong, do state law enforcement officers just basically ignore citizenship?

go bowe
07-06-2010, 03:40 PM
Increase the funding to meet the threat.

They are all criminals.actually as i understand it, federal law does not make unlawful presence a criminal act...

so under federal law, they are not criminals based on there mere presence here...

because of preemption, a state cannot criminalize that which congress has decided is not a crime...

go bowe
07-06-2010, 03:42 PM
Four:

"It will altogether ignore humanitarian concerns, such as the protections available under federal law for an alien who has a well-founded fear of persecution or who has been the victim of a natural disaster."

Don't care.i understand that you don't care, but asylum and humanitarian provisions have been enacted by congress = field preemption...

Donger
07-06-2010, 03:43 PM
i understand that you don't care, but asylum and humanitarian provisions have been enacted by congress = field preemption...

A legal alien has no need to fear persecution, because they are here legally.

orange
07-06-2010, 03:46 PM
A legal alien has no need to fear persecution, because they are here legally.

48.
Section 3 – the enforcement of which S.B. 1070 effectively mandates through operation of Section 2’s alien inspection and verification regime – demands the arrest and prosecution of all aliens who do not have certain enumerated registration documents. But several classes of aliens who are eligible for humanitarian relief are simply not provided with registration documents while their status is being adjudicated by the federal government, notwithstanding the federal government’s knowledge that these aliens are present in the United States. S.B. 1070 thus seeks to criminalize aliens whose presence is known and accepted by the federal government (at least during the pendency of their status review) and thereby conflicts with and otherwise stands as an obstacle to the full purposes and objectives of Congress in providing certain forms of humanitarian relief.

dirk digler
07-06-2010, 03:46 PM
That would be usurping federal law. Federal law states that it is illegal to enter the country without approval. AZ is just agreeing with the federal government.

They are both unsurping since it is the job of the Federal Government to enforce immigration laws not the states job.

go bowe
07-06-2010, 03:47 PM
Five:

"And it will interfere with vital foreign policy and national security interests by disrupting the United States’ relationship with Mexico and other countries."

Is this a f*cking joke?sounds like it, doesn't it?

it's a reference to supremes having decided that one of the constitutional bases for immigration law is the federal power to deal with the issues like foreign relations...

personally, i think it is the weakest proposition in the complaint...

Donger
07-06-2010, 03:48 PM
48.
Section 3 – the enforcement of which S.B. 1070 effectively mandates through operation of Section 2’s alien inspection and verification regime – demands the arrest and prosecution of all aliens who do not have certain enumerated registration documents. But several classes of aliens who are eligible for humanitarian relief are simply not provided with registration documents while their status is being adjudicated by the federal government, notwithstanding the federal government’s knowledge that these aliens are present in the United States. S.B. 1070 thus seeks to criminalize aliens whose presence is known and accepted by the federal government (at least during the pendency of their status review) and thereby conflicts with and otherwise stands as an obstacle to the full purposes and objectives of Congress in providing certain forms of humanitarian relief.

Sounds like the federal government should at least stamp their hands, right?

Donger
07-06-2010, 03:48 PM
actually as i understand it, federal law does not make unlawful presence a criminal act...

so under federal law, they are not criminals based on there mere presence here...

because of preemption, a state cannot criminalize that which congress has decided is not a crime...

I think if they are caught twice, it's a felony, but I digress. Illegal it is.

orange
07-06-2010, 03:49 PM
Sounds like the federal government should at least stamp their hands, right?

But they don't.... and it's THEIR decision, not Arizona's.

Donger
07-06-2010, 03:49 PM
They are both unsurping since it is the job of the Federal Government to enforce immigration laws not the states job.

That's kind of the whole point.

Donger
07-06-2010, 03:50 PM
But they don't.... and it's THEIR decision, not Arizona's.

Right, another failure by the federal government to do its job.

orange
07-06-2010, 03:50 PM
That's kind of the whole point.

Right, another failure by the federal government to do its job.



Which brings us back to...

Arizona doesn't get to tell the U.S. what to do. They are ONE voice out of FIFTY.

go bowe
07-06-2010, 03:51 PM
IIRC, the AZ law only requires a valid AZ driver's license for proof of legality.i don't recall what the exact provisions are regarding what documentation would be accepted as proof of lawful presence...

i would guess that if the license showed an american birth, it would be pretty good evidence of lawful presence, but if the individual were born elsewhere, it wouldn't show his status on its face...

mlyonsd
07-06-2010, 03:52 PM
That's kind of the whole point.

Here's your duh moment.....brought to you by the letter D.

dirk digler
07-06-2010, 03:52 PM
How does it work now, do state law enforcement officers not detain illegal immigrants if they're found to be illegals? I don't know the answer. It would seem to me that if a state law enforcement officer discovered an illegal alien he would have some sort of responsibility to enforce the law, even if it is the Federal Government's ultimate responsibility. Or am I wrong, do state law enforcement officers just basically ignore citizenship?

If they are found to be here illegally say through an investigation or found to be illegal when committing a crime I believe they have to call ICE but local police, state troopers etc don't ask or aren't suppose to otherwise.

Most local police\sheriff departments don't have the resources to handle this

dirk digler
07-06-2010, 03:53 PM
That's kind of the whole point.

I know but it still is unsurping the Federal law.

HonestChieffan
07-06-2010, 03:53 PM
But they don't.... and it's THEIR decision, not Arizona's.

If these people are here legally its not relevant to the issue of dealing with illegals. In fact the vast majority of people that could be asked for ID will have it or in this case beable to provide some proof they are not illegal.

mlyonsd
07-06-2010, 03:55 PM
Which brings us back to...

Arizona doesn't get to tell the U.S. what to do. They are ONE voice out of FIFTY.

Not if the SC decides that the federal goverment chooses not to enforce their own law.

If that is proven I can easily see a state law being acceptable.

go bowe
07-06-2010, 03:55 PM
That would be usurping federal law. Federal law states that it is illegal to enter the country without approval. AZ is just agreeing with the federal government.i may have already addressed this, but federal law doesn't make unlawful presence a crime and under the doctrine of preemption states can't go ahead on their own beyond what congress has decided wrt criminal penalties...

Donger
07-06-2010, 03:55 PM
Which brings us back to...

Arizona doesn't get to tell the U.S. what to do. They are ONE voice out of FIFTY.

It kind of sounds like the Arizona law should not have made it a state crime. I can see that as a sticking point. Maybe it should have been argued as, "We're gonna help you feds do your job. Here are some illegals. Glad to help."

Donger
07-06-2010, 03:57 PM
i may have already addressed this, but federal law doesn't make unlawful presence a crime and under the doctrine of preemption states can't go ahead on their own beyond what congress has decided wrt criminal penalties...

See above. Under what law does the federal government permit deportations, anyway?

mlyonsd
07-06-2010, 03:57 PM
I know but it still is unsurping the Federal law.

Seriously this is a come to jesus moment with the problem. The AZ government should be applauded by both sides and all Americans. All they are doing is forcing the feds to do their job.

go bowe
07-06-2010, 03:57 PM
I read through it VERY quickly, so I'd welcome specifics.that thing gave me a headache when i read it...

i'd have to read it more carefully myself to get into specifics specifically, so to speak...

dirk digler
07-06-2010, 03:58 PM
IIRC, the AZ law only requires a valid AZ driver's license for proof of legality.

See this is where it gets dicey and the biggest problem with the law. What if for example CA or NM said all illegals can get a drivers license. Then how would Arizona enforce this if they came to their state?

orange
07-06-2010, 03:59 PM
Not if the SC decides that the federal goverment chooses not to enforce their own law.

If that is proven I can easily see a state law being acceptable.

I don't see that happening. What a can of worms that would open.
Besides, has anyone currently on the SCOTUS been hostile to Federal power?

go bowe
07-06-2010, 04:01 PM
A legal alien has no need to fear persecution, because they are here legally.true, but there are other categories of lawful status besides legal residency...

or were you referring to any lawful presence?

fwiw, i think the complaint went a little far with the persecution stuff...

HonestChieffan
07-06-2010, 04:01 PM
Seems the Feds CANNOT enforce the law without State help....Right from Obama's own guy!!



Immigration and Customs Release Memo Showing Agency Only Has Resources To Remove 4% of Illegal Aliens Per Year
Tuesday, July 06, 2010
By Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer


Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, John Morton, is shown here announcing narcotic-related arrests with Attorney General Eric Holder, left, last month. (Photo courtesy of ICE)
(CNSNews.com) – In a June 30 memorandum, John Morton, assistant secretary of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), said that enforcing civil immigration laws is vital to “our national security, public safety, and the integrity of our border and immigration controls.”

But Morton also said that ICE only has the resources to remove about 400,000 illegal aliens each year, a litle less than 4 percent of the current population of those in the United States illegally.

In the memo, Morton said that because of the lack of resources, ICE must prioritize how it uses its personnel and detention facilities.

“In light of the large number of administrative violations the agency is charged with addressing and the limited enforcement resources the agency has available, ICE must prioritize the use of its enforcement personnel, detention space, and removal resources to ensure that the removals the agency does conduct promote the agency's highest enforcement priorities, namely national security, public safety, and border security,” the memorandum states.

The memo further says that “aliens who pose a danger to national security or a risk to public safety shall be ICE's highest immigration enforcement priority.”

The memo also spells out which illegal aliens should not be detained.

“Absent extraordinary circumstances or the requirements of mandatory detention, field office directors should not expend detention resources on aliens who are known to be suffering from serious physical or mental illness, or who are disabled, elderly, pregnant, or nursing, or demonstrate that they are primary caretakers of children or an infirm person, or whose detention is otherwise not in the public interest,” reads the memorandum.

The memorandum says that in prosecuting the cases of illegal aliens, “particular care should be given when dealing with lawful permanent residents, juveniles, and the immediate family members of U.S. citizens.”

Morton, in the memo, said that “additional guidance on prosecutorial discretion is forthcoming."

go bowe
07-06-2010, 04:04 PM
Sounds like the federal government should at least stamp their hands, right?it does make you wonder, doesn't it?

you'd think they could issue receipts for the applications like they do with petitions for legal residency to prove their status...

mlyonsd
07-06-2010, 04:05 PM
I don't see that happening. What a can of worms that would open.
Besides, has anyone currently on the SCOTUS been hostile to Federal power?

I can easily see the SC deciding for the state if it is proven the federal government isn't doing their sworn duty.

orange
07-06-2010, 04:06 PM
Seems the Feds CANNOT enforce the law without State help....Right from Obama's own guy!!


In the memo, Morton said that because of the lack of resources, ICE must prioritize how it uses its personnel and detention facilities.

“In light of the large number of administrative violations the agency is charged with addressing and the limited enforcement resources the agency has available, ICE must prioritize the use of its enforcement personnel, detention space, and removal resources to ensure that the removals the agency does conduct promote the agency's highest enforcement priorities, namely national security, public safety, and border security,” the memorandum states.

The memo further says that “aliens who pose a danger to national security or a risk to public safety shall be ICE's highest immigration enforcement priority.”



Thank you so much!!! You just made the Justice Department's case. ROFL

Arizona doesn't "help" in any way. It just drops more non-priority aliens in ICE's lap.

Donger
07-06-2010, 04:08 PM
Thank you so much!!! You just made the Justice Department's case. ROFL

Arizona doesn't "help" in any way. It just drops more non-priority aliens in ICE's lap.

Because ICE is under-funded to meet the need? It's also an admission that the federal government CAN'T and ISN'T doing its job.

HonestChieffan
07-06-2010, 04:08 PM
Lack of resources? That makes a case?

You are more ignorant with each day. With the billions this admin has blown on turtle bridges and other crap, they cannot stand in front of anyone and contend they have no resources to protect the country and the states.


Red face test when the SC begins laughing at Holder and Napsterino

orange
07-06-2010, 04:10 PM
Because ICE is under-funded to meet the need?

44.
Mandatory state alien inspection schemes and attendant federal verification requirements will impermissibly impair and burden the federal resources and activities of DHS. S.B. 1070’s mandate for verification of alien status will necessarily result in a dramatic increase in the number of verification requests being issued to DHS, and will thereby place a tremendous burden on DHS resources, necessitating a reallocation of DHS resources away from its policy priorities. As such, the federal government will be required to divert resources from its own, carefully considered enforcement priorities – dangerous aliens who pose a threat to national security and public safety – to address the work that Arizona will now create for it. Such interference with federal priorities, driven by state-imposed burdens on federal resources, constitutes a violation of the Supremacy Clause.

Donger
07-06-2010, 04:12 PM
44.
Mandatory state alien inspection schemes and attendant federal verification requirements will impermissibly impair and burden the federal resources and activities of DHS. S.B. 1070’s mandate for verification of alien status will necessarily result in a dramatic increase in the number of verification requests being issued to DHS, and will thereby place a tremendous burden on DHS resources, necessitating a reallocation of DHS resources away from its policy priorities. As such, the federal government will be required to divert resources from its own, carefully considered enforcement priorities – dangerous aliens who pose a threat to national security and public safety – to address the work that Arizona will now create for it. Such interference with federal priorities, driven by state-imposed burdens on federal resources, constitutes a violation of the Supremacy Clause.

Increase funding to met needs. Pretty simple. We've got 10% unemployment. I'd have no problem adding 50% more ICE employees.

go bowe
07-06-2010, 04:12 PM
Not if the SC decides that the federal goverment chooses not to enforce their own law.

If that is proven I can easily see a state law being acceptable.i dunno...

i think the supremes have already decided that issue...

in fact the complaint specifically refers to the federal government's decision to prioritize limited enforcement (i.s., not enforce its own law) as one of the bases for the preemption argument...

i might agree with you that state law should be acceptable on a personal level, but i think existing law is pretty clear...

vailpass
07-06-2010, 04:13 PM
Orange you may want to stay out of AZ for a while or tone yourself way down if you do decide to visit.

orange
07-06-2010, 04:14 PM
Increase funding to met needs. Pretty simple. We've got 10% unemployment. I'd have no problem adding 50% more ICE employees.

Again, that's not for Arizona to say...

The Mad Crapper
07-06-2010, 04:14 PM
I'll lay some casino cash that the more Obama fights this, and particularly if he gets this law shot down there will be a huge lashback on him.

Pete, he's already down to 28% who strongly approve of the job he's doing, how much worse can it get?

The cruel irony is blacks (as usual) get hurt the worse by illegals.

HonestChieffan
07-06-2010, 04:15 PM
Again, that's not for Arizona to say...

seems it may be

Donger
07-06-2010, 04:15 PM
Again, that's not for Arizona to say...

ICE is saying it, too.

go bowe
07-06-2010, 04:16 PM
See above. Under what law does the federal government permit deportations, anyway?mainly the ina, with some other statutes addressing it as far as i know off the top of my head...

mlyonsd
07-06-2010, 04:20 PM
i dunno...

i think the supremes have already decided that issue...

in fact the complaint specifically refers to the federal government's decision to prioritize limited enforcement (i.s., not enforce its own law) as one of the bases for the preemption argument...

i might agree with you that state law should be acceptable on a personal level, but i think existing law is pretty clear...

What you're not getting here is AZ can easily prove illegals cause American deaths. That sets a new precedent IMO.

I'm not a lawyer but I can see the SC backing AZ on this one.

orange
07-06-2010, 04:21 PM
ICE is saying it, too.

ICE says no such thing.

Im not going to quote the nine pages.

http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/declaration-of-david-palmatier.pdf

Suffice to say ... ICE is AGAINST Arizona 1070.


15. In my professional judgment, Arizona SB 1070 will inevitably result in a significant increase in the number of IAQs. The LESC processed just over 1,000,000 IAQs in FY 09. According to the FBI Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS), in FY 09 criminal justice agencies in Arizona submitted 563,474 arrest records to CJIS, but just over 80,000 IAQs originated from all agencies within the state of Arizona in FY 09. Thus, Arizona SB 1070's requirement that "[a]ny person who is arrested shall have the person's immigration status determined before the person is released" could, by itself, dramatically increase the LESC's workload. Moreover, because Arizona's law calls for status verifications for lawful stops— whether or not such stops result in an arrest—the number of IAQ's will increase dramatically. If even a small percentage of these stops, detentions, and arrests lead to new IAQs. the LESC will be forced to process thousands of additional IAQs annually. Moreover, Arizona's new law will result in an increase in the number of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents being queried through the LESC, reducing our ability to provide timely responses to law enforcement on serious criminal aliens.

16. This increase in queries from Arizona will delay response times for all IAQs and risks exceeding the capacity of the LESC to respond to higher priority requests for criminal alien status determinations from law enforcement partners nationwide. Furthermore, the potential increase in queries by Arizona along with the possibility of other states adopting similar legislation could overwhelm the system.

17. If the LESC's capacity to respond to requests for assistance is exceeded, the initial impact would be delays in responding to time-sensitive inquiries from state, local, and federal law enforcement, meaning that very serious violators may well escape scrutiny and be released before the LESC can respond to police and inform them of the serious nature of the illegal alien they have encountered. If delays continue to increase at the LESC, ICE might have to divert personnel from other critical missions to serve the needs of our law enforcement partners. The LESC directly supports both the public safety and national security missions of DHS. These are critical missions which cannot be allowed to fail.

go bowe
07-06-2010, 04:23 PM
Lack of resources? That makes a case?

You are more ignorant with each day. With the billions this admin has blown on turtle bridges and other crap, they cannot stand in front of anyone and contend they have no resources to protect the country and the states.


Red face test when the SC begins laughing at Holder and Napsterinoboth democrat and republican administrations have prioritized enforcement efforts for a very long time...

resources are limited, that's just the reality...

the supremes may laugh at holder, but i don't see the roberts court overturning years and years of precedent and statutes duly enacted by congress...

the young conservative club (roberts, alito, scalia, thomas) gives considerable deference to precedent and congressional pronouncements...

i don't think they'll overturn the federal statutues...

Donger
07-06-2010, 04:24 PM
ICE says no such thing.

Im not going to quote the nine pages.

http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/declaration-of-david-palmatier.pdf

Suffice to say ... ICE is AGAINST Arizona 1070.

Meh.

“In light of the large number of administrative violations the agency is charged with addressing and the limited enforcement resources the agency has available, ICE must prioritize the use of its enforcement personnel, detention space, and removal resources to ensure that the removals the agency does conduct promote the agency's highest enforcement priorities, namely national security, public safety, and border security,” the memorandum states.

So, ICE does not have sufficient resources to do its job and must basically ignore just the run-of-the-mill illegals?

go bowe
07-06-2010, 04:25 PM
Increase funding to met needs. Pretty simple. We've got 10% unemployment. I'd have no problem adding 50% more ICE employees.me either, i think they need to add at least that many...

but as political reality, i don't see it happening...

Donger
07-06-2010, 04:25 PM
Of course they are against it, because they aren't sufficiently funded.

vailpass
07-06-2010, 04:27 PM
Which foreign aid program(s) do we need to cut in order to fully fund a comprehensive illegal immigration reform and border security program?
Some FA programs are strategic but far from all; there are plenty we can suspend without significant political repercussions.

go bowe
07-06-2010, 04:35 PM
What you're not getting here is AZ can easily prove illegals cause American deaths. That sets a new precedent IMO.

I'm not a lawyer but I can see the SC backing AZ on this one.i'm not sure it would be easy to prove the correlation between illegals and american deaths other than a few isolated examples and those incidents, iirc, involved violent criminals like drug smugglers and possibly coyotes which are a very small percentage of illegals...

even if you could, that fact would not establish a new precedent...

the many cases decided by the supremes over the years are precedents, decided cases, and the precedents are solidly behind most of the government's assertions in the complaint...

in addition, if i'm not mistaken, the issue of a state exercising it's police power (which is what i think you are referring to) in the area of immigration law has been addressed by the supremes and they didn't buy it...

personally i think the supremes should take another look at it, but i don't see that happening...

go bowe
07-06-2010, 04:36 PM
Meh.

“In light of the large number of administrative violations the agency is charged with addressing and the limited enforcement resources the agency has available, ICE must prioritize the use of its enforcement personnel, detention space, and removal resources to ensure that the removals the agency does conduct promote the agency's highest enforcement priorities, namely national security, public safety, and border security,” the memorandum states.

So, ICE does not have sufficient resources to do its job and must basically ignore just the run-of-the-mill illegals?yes...

The Mad Crapper
07-06-2010, 04:42 PM
BOB CHRISTIE (AP) - Associated Press Writer PHOENIX The U.S. Justice Department is filing a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Arizona's tough new law targeting illegal immigrants.
The planned lawsuit was confirmed to The Associated Press by a Justice Department official with knowledge of the plans. The official didn't want to be identified before a public announcement planned for later Tuesday.

The lawsuit will argue that Arizona's new measure requiring state and local police to question and possibly arrest illegal immigrants during the enforcement of other laws, like traffic stops, usurps federal authority.

Tuesday's action has been expected for weeks. President Barack Obama has called the state law misguided. Supporters say it is a reasonable reaction to federal inaction on immigration.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9GPKR5O0&show_article=1

Shouldn't that read The US Social Justice Department?

ROFL

orange
07-06-2010, 04:43 PM
Let's get to some numbers.

In 2007, discretionary spending on border security was $6.3 billion. As Pence noted, that was the last year of full Republican control. After that, while George W. Bush remained in the presidency, Congress was controlled by Democrats. But discretionary spending on border security continued to rise year after year. It went to $7.9 billion in 2008; to $9.8 billion in 2009; and to $10.1 billion in fiscal year 2010. President Barack Obama's proposed 2011 budget calls for a slight decrease in discretionary spending on border security, but even at the proposed level of $9.8 billion, that's a 55 percent increase between 2007 and 2011.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/may/05/mike-pence/republican-says-obama-cut-budget-illegal-immigrati/


And that was BEFORE Obama requested an additional $600 million in June.

vailpass
07-06-2010, 04:46 PM
Let's get to some numbers.

In 2007, discretionary spending on border security was $6.3 billion. As Pence noted, that was the last year of full Republican control. After that, while George W. Bush remained in the presidency, Congress was controlled by Democrats. But discretionary spending on border security continued to rise year after year. It went to $7.9 billion in 2008; to $9.8 billion in 2009; and to $10.1 billion in fiscal year 2010. President Barack Obama's proposed 2011 budget calls for a slight decrease in discretionary spending on border security, but even at the proposed level of $9.8 billion, that's a 55 percent increase between 2007 and 2011.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/may/05/mike-pence/republican-says-obama-cut-budget-illegal-immigrati/


And that was BEFORE Obama requested an additional $600 million in June.

We need to spend more to get the job done. How much are we spending on aid to foreign countries this year?

HonestChieffan
07-06-2010, 04:47 PM
Irrelevant....what was spent in the past cannot be used to justify the situation today. The simple fact is its the responsibility of the federal government to police and maintain border security and they choose not to and choose to spend money on things that are less important. Plus they run a deficit so the fact they don't have money is irrelevant or we would not have TARP, a failed stimulus, 400 billion going to the UN and any number of other BS things.

The Mad Crapper
07-06-2010, 04:55 PM
The wise Latina will know what to do.

thecoffeeguy
07-06-2010, 04:59 PM
Figures.
It figures Orange is here to support Obama as well.

I see this going badly for Obama. Wait to piss the nation off even more you joke for a president.

orange
07-06-2010, 05:00 PM
The simple fact is its the responsibility of the federal government to police and maintain border security and they choose not to and choose to spend money on things that are less important.

A fact SO simple that it doesn't exist. Where does the Constitution order it? Maybe you're thinking of some Treaty or something?

No, as far as I know, immigration is SOLELY Congress' venue. To do what they will... or not.

vailpass
07-06-2010, 05:00 PM
Nobody need worry. Napolitano has this covered.

orange
07-06-2010, 05:05 PM
We need to spend more to get the job done. How much are we spending on aid to foreign countries this year?

It's about $28 billion. 80-90% of it is military/security.

HonestChieffan
07-06-2010, 05:07 PM
A fact SO simple that it doesn't exist. Where does the Constitution order it? Maybe you're thinking of some Treaty or something?

No, as far as I know, immigration is SOLELY Congress' venue. To do what they will... or not.


Provide for the common defense?


Perhaps this is a case that is a second amendment issue....a militia may be in order...

I think you underestimate the will of the people on this issue...there will be repercussions for Obamas lack of attention to a critical issue .

vailpass
07-06-2010, 05:09 PM
It's about $28 billion. 80-90% of it is military/security.

90% of all foreign aid we give is military/security? Bullshit. I'll look for myself when I have time Orange, I'm afraid your views are a little slanted.

KC Dan
07-06-2010, 05:15 PM
90% of all foreign aid we give is military/security? Bullshit. I'll look for myself when I have time Orange, I'm afraid your views are a little slanted.Not the most current (thru 2006) but something anyways. Looks like around 80% to me

vailpass
07-06-2010, 05:23 PM
It's about $28 billion. 80-90% of it is military/security.

Are you including the cost of acitve war fronts in that figure i.w. Iraq, Afghanistan?

orange
07-06-2010, 05:26 PM
90% of all foreign aid we give is military/security? Bullshit. I'll look for myself when I have time Orange, I'm afraid your views are a little slanted.

Good luck finding current information broken down that way.

To the point, how much do you think can actually be trimmed and converted to border security?

Are you including the cost of acitve war fronts in that figure i.w. Iraq, Afghanistan?

I don't think so. Actual war spending is never included in the foreign aid totals that I've seen.

orange
07-06-2010, 05:28 PM
Not the most current (thru 2006) but something anyways. Looks like around 80% to me

:rockon:

vailpass
07-06-2010, 05:30 PM
:rockon:

1. Those are 5 year old statistics
2. At first blush it appears that 40 % or so is non military.

vailpass
07-06-2010, 05:31 PM
Good luck finding current information broken down that way.

To the point, how much do you think can actually be trimmed and converted to border security?



I don't think so. Actual war spending is never included in the foreign aid totals that I've seen.

How much can be trimmed? As much as need be. Take back some of that pork he wants to hand out for failed stimulus projects. Repeal that bankruptcy-in-waiting health care debacle and pretty soon we have a lot of border funding.

orange
07-06-2010, 05:33 PM
How much can be trimmed? As much as need be. Take back some of that pork he wants to hand out for failed stimulus projects. Repeal that bankruptcy-in-waiting health care debacle and pretty soon we have a lot of border funding.

What's lacking is the actual will to do that as a nation. Put up a law and see what happens.

If the GOP thinks this is a winning issue, they should by all means run on it.

But passing end-run laws state by state isn't going to fly.

petegz28
07-06-2010, 05:41 PM
What's lacking is the actual will to do that as a nation. Put up a law and see what happens.

If the GOP thinks this is a winning issue, they should by all means run on it.

But passing end-run laws state by state isn't going to fly.

You mean like passing unconstitutional mandates for people to engage in commerce won't fly? Oh, wait.

vailpass
07-06-2010, 05:43 PM
What's lacking is the actual will to do that as a nation. Put up a law and see what happens.

If the GOP thinks this is a winning issue, they should by all means run on it.

But passing end-run laws state by state isn't going to fly.

The state passing a law is the only action so far that seems to have garnered federal attention. I'm all for the feds (although obama & Napolitano make me *shudder*) handling border security and illegal aliens if they would commit the resources to doing so.

If the feds would view the illegal immigration and compromised border security as the national emergencies they are we could divert funds in plenty to handle the situation.

BucEyedPea
07-06-2010, 05:46 PM
Obama and many of his O-bot fellow Democrats have a Death Wish.

dirk digler
07-06-2010, 05:51 PM
Lack of resources? That makes a case?

You are more ignorant with each day. With the billions this admin has blown on turtle bridges and other crap, they cannot stand in front of anyone and contend they have no resources to protect the country and the states.


Red face test when the SC begins laughing at Holder and Napsterino

Local and state agencies have a severe lack of resources. Unless they can come up with a way to bill the federal government.

KC native
07-06-2010, 07:48 PM
http://memegenerator.net/Mexico-Man/ImageMacro/1530583/Mexico-Man-haha-you-lose.jpg

ROYC75
07-06-2010, 11:38 PM
United We Stand,

Divided we fall,

It would appear that Obama is out to destroy this country that we live in.

You left wing nuts that got him elected should feel some sense of embarrassment by this guy, No ? Please explain then !

The Mad Crapper
07-07-2010, 05:25 AM
United We Stand,

Divided we fall,

It would appear that Obama is out to destroy this country that we live in.



It would appear the Pope is Catholic.