One thing that is beyond debate is that the USA has an established system in
place whereby would-be immigrants wanting to come into and live in the United
States must follow. Those who don't follow those immigration laws are
considered illegal. That is not debatable. If the federal government
actually did it's clearly defined role in this process, none of these
current issues would exist. But for whatever reasons... currently mostly
Obama's personal feelings... the federal government is not doing it's
job adequately, which makes individual states feel compelled to do it. Clearly, illegal immigration causes problems in society. Not just within our
borders, but for the millions of people who are trying to lawfully immigrate
into the USA. They preempt the system and take the jobs that those would-be
immigrants who are waiting to come legally would otherwise obtain and often from
currently unemployed citizens. They cause huge social costs. Otherwise, so many
different states wouldn't be taking these actions and passing their own
enforcement laws. If only the federal government would do it's job and
enforce it's laws... all of this would go away. But they don't!!
So let me ge this traight----if the vast majority of illegals happen to be of
one race, then any time you stop a person of that race and question them, even
with probable cause, it's racial profiling? The definition of profiling
and the alleged use of it, aside from the true meaning of the Supreme Court, is
about as political and one-sided as anything has been since World War II. What
I wonder is why can't Mexico and it's people solve some of their own
serious problems? And if they "dream" of being US Citizens why
don't they learn English and wave an American Flag at their rallies?
It's all one-sided, isn't it?
One provision was upheld. The other three were pre-empted, not overturned. The
difference is pre-emption means the Federal government has already set the law
in this area, and under the Supremacy Clause (Article VI), their law pre-empts a
state law. So it's not that Arizona proposed course of action was illegal;
it was that it's the Federal government's job to act. So if you wanted
these provisions to be in place, congrats! They are ALL in place. Those who
oppose illegal immigration are the clear winners.
Obama didn't deport more, he just started counting people turned back at
the border. He also let out felons early in US jails and counted them if they
promised to go home. 1.5 million visas to people from Mexico last
year, no wonder illegal immigration dropped by half a million in the last five
years. @Tolstoy, Reagan's amnesty wasn't his, he signed it
after both houses of congress passed it. It was a good lesson for us, amnesty
just brings more lawbreakers. It went through congress, it was not
put in place by one man.
@procuradorfiscal"Which regime has taken the unprecedented step of
declaring an amnesty....." seriously? A little less time listening to Glen
and Sean and a little more time with your nose in a book would be good. Look up
Reagan's 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act and get back to us.
Re: "In case you missed the facts, this "regime" has deported more
illegal immigrants than the last Republican president."While
we're on the subject of spin . . . .So, which regime was it
that brought this action and fought it tooth and nail? Which regime has taken
the unprecedented step of declaring an amnesty the President, himself, declared
illegal, vowing to flout the will of Congress and the people, to no higher
purpose than to buy votes? Which regime was it that, upon hearing of the Supreme
Court's ruling, immediately tried to nullify it by illegally severing ties
with Arizona law enforcement?It's nothing BUT spin to suggest
the Obama regime was anything other than opposed to this provision of the law,
or that it is now engaged in anything other than a desperate, illegal
vote-buying scam, as it scrambles to declare victory.But -- I do
agree common sense prevailed. At lease with respect to the one provision that
was unanimously upheld by the voting Court.
Laws don't profile, people do. And it's not against the law to do it.
We allow it in airports and within 100 miles of the border. Is affirmative
action profiling? History making as we finally have the courts tell
us that local police also carry the responsibility.
@procuradorfiscalStop the spin, I've got a headache!In case you missed the facts, this "regime" has deported more illegal
immigrants than the last Republican president. Not something Fox News would
tell you.I disagree with the article. The clear winner is common
sense, for a change.If you're arrested/cited for any crime, it
makes absolute sense for the citizenship status of that person to be checked,
regardless of race. Police check for outstanding warrants, and your
citizenship, common sense. What police will not be permitted to do is to
selectively choose which law-abiding citizen "looks" or "acts"
like an illegal immigrant. Again, common sense wins out, as even the most
prejudiced and racially motivated radical members of law enforcement will be
forced to put aside their personal opinions while seeking justice.It's a rare day when common sense prevails. Luckily the actions of the 3
conservative activists on the bench helped make the day more ordinary.
Re: "No clear winner"Huh?Arizona and the Nation
are the clear winners. The Court upheld the right to require, even deranged,
vote-buying, liberal politicians in sanctuary cities, to check immigration
status of apprehended miscreants.And the regime's cheap
vote-buying trick of severing relations with Arizona law enforcement won't
work, either.As Justice Thomas noted, ". . . federal law
expressly states that 'no State or local government entity may be
prohibited, or in any way restricted, from sending to or receiving from'
federal officials 'information regarding the immigration status' of an
alien [citation omitted]. And, federal law imposes an affirmative obligation on
federal officials to respond to a State’s immigration-related inquiries
[citation omitted]."The rest was, frankly, surplussage.Of course, the regime will be faced, yet again, with the decision of obeying
or flouting the law. Out of desperation, it'll probably choose poorly, but
the people will then get a clear chance to sanction the regime's disrespect
and disregard of the rule of law, not men.