Three of Four Struck down.
The fourth made almost impossible to perform, due to termination of Federal Policy, and threats from Holder that the Fed. will be watching over AZ to ensure no racial profiling (as they see it), no cops pulled from other vital duty (as they see it), no descrimination against illegal immigrant crime victims coming forward or even feeling like they can't from forward (as they see it) and that no civil rights violations occur (as they see it).
Hard to see this as anything other than a total, 100%, victory of the Democrats on the issue of immigration law and enforcement.
Unless, of course, you think this issue guarantees a victory in November and your simply projecting this issue as a major factor to that presumed victory.
On the issue itself tho, 100% win by the left.
The part B. Hussein didn't like (where he likened your neighborhood DQ to a potential holding pen), the reasonable suspicion part allows state authorities to aid the Federal government. It supports the law rather than preempting it. Not conservatives/the GOP/rational people's fault that (D) and 0 won't enforce the law. Scalia knows how dumb it is to have a law on the books that can't or won't be enforced.
8 United States Code section 1304(e) or 1306(a)
Last edited by Jungle Shift Jet; 06-25-2012 at 06:52 PM.
ICE does the actual deportation under DHS guidelines of which it is a part, what of it. B. Hussein and Withholder maintained that AZ couldn't even ask these pukes for documentation about their immigration status so they couldn't get booted out. HSI doesn't need an office in every little town if DHS made it hard to get into the US in the first place as it should be and enforced the freakin' laws on the books.
Why should I give a sh!t about the cost of temporary housing when it's a drop in the bucket compared to the parasitic leeching of social services at all government levels in exchange for (D) votes. Take a piece of the multi-$B given away in unmerited tax refunds by the IRS every year to these thieves if you are looking for funding for ideally should be a very short stay in a Ramadan Inn. Why must there be a wait to determine something that can be easily determined in minutes in the computer age? To pad government payrolls OT and pensions?
Just like the answer to "How do you eat an elephant"? is one bite at a time, they can all be kicked out one leech at a time.
on that basis the ruling was right. however the bigger picture is if the feds will now enforce the constitutional laws on the books and whether or not law enforcement (or lack thereof) is an impeachable offense. imo not upholding the law can be construed as impeachable. let's see if congress has enough will to do this. still pretty tricky because there are still many fools in this country who are wild for the prez and don't have a clue about the constitution.
I wonder, in theory, how this rulimg, that Immigration Law and Immigration Enforcement is a Federal, not a State issue.....I wonder how this will/could effect so-called "Sanctuary Cities" where they refuse to be a party to enforcement of Immigration Law.
As this case appears to make clear that States/Locals have no authority to overrule or even assist without specific permission immigration law or enforcement, under an Administration that chooses to enforce the Law, would then a Sanctuary City be forced to abandon their sanctuary policy as an unconstitutional breach of this very Federal power?
It would seem that it cannot work both ways. If a State has no authority to suppliment or enforce any portion of immigration Law without Federal permission, would then a State alos not have the authority to ignore Federal Law should teh Fed. so desire?
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz1yrjIvC00The move means that even if local police step up immigration checks,
It's illegal for state and or local law enforcement to do exactly what is stated.
In less than 4 years, Obama is giving Dubya a run for WOAT. Well done Barry.
From the same story.
The Obama administration quickly moved to deflate the remaining provision.
By Monday afternoon, the Department of Homeland Security had pulled back on a program known as 287(g), which allows the feds to deputize local officials to make immigration-based arrests. According to a Homeland Security official, the administration has determined those agreements are "not useful" now in states that have Arizona-style laws. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has since rescinded that agreement in Arizona -- with the state itself, and with three local law enforcement agencies.
The move means that even if local police step up immigration checks, they'll have to rely on federal officials to make the arrests.
And federal officials made clear that ICE would be selective in responding to the expected rise in calls from Arizona and other police agencies about immigration status. Officials said ICE will not respond to the scene unless the person in question meets certain criteria -- such as being wanted for a felony.
Because as you say there wasn't an HSI office in every little town
state level deputization was allowed.
The federales withdrew that deputization 10 seconds after the SC decision-why?
ICE does as they are told, so if they are told to ease back they are fulfilling their duty as they see it even if they sit on their thumbs and do nothing. They are in the middle.
Most US citizens don't see it that way, as long as one leech is here from any nation the duty remains unfulfilled even if you think you're doing a heckuva job.