The Fundamentals of Nov 2nd, 2010

indyfromaz|

Newsweek’s Ben Adler was aghast at the clause in the GOP’s Pledge to America that Republicans will provide a “citation of constitutional authority” for every proposed piece of legislation. “We have a mechanism for assessing the constitutionality of legislation, which is the independent judiciary,” Adler wrote. “An extraconstitutional attempt to limit the powers of Congress is dangerous even as a mere suggestion, and it constitutes an encroachment on the judiciary.”
A progressive blogger, meanwhile, writes in U.S. News & World Report that such talk of requiring constitutionality is “just plain wacky.”
Before we get to the historical niceties, a question:
Does anyone, anywhere, think legislators should vote for legislation they think is unconstitutional? Anyone? Anyone?
How about presidents? Should they sign such legislation into law?
Yet, according to this creepy logic, there’s no reason for congressmen to pass, obey or even consider the supreme law of the land. Re-impose slavery? Sure! Let’s see if we can catch the Supreme Court asleep at the switch. Nationalize the TV stations? Establish a king? Kill every first-born child? Why not? It ain’t unconstitutional until the Supreme Court says so!
Nationalize Health Care, sure, why not. Mandate that all citizens will have health care or else they will pay a fine (that is actually a tax but we don’t call it that except in court when we have to) or possibly go to jail.
Yeah, that’s the ticket!
Mandate that Companies must provide Health care or pay a fine (that is actually a tax but we don’t call it that except in court when we have to).
Whoops!, sorry the Democrats ALREADY DID THAT.
And of course, that means the president can’t veto legislation because it’s unconstitutional, because that’s apparently not his job. Wouldn’t want to “encroach” on the judiciary!
Especially, the judiciary we’ve been packing with Liberals for a generation or two.
Like suing a State of The Union, Arizona.
Get a Liberal judge to rule that if we want to ignore Border Security you can’t do anything about it! ~ 
Oh, and you’re a “racist” if you disagree with us.
Of course, reasonable people understand how absurd all of this is.
There’s nothing in the Constitution — nothing! — that says the Supreme Court is the final or sole arbiter of what is or is not constitutional.
But for Liberals, let’s just pass whatever the hell we want, when we want it, and if we can get a Liberal enough judge to agree we can do it, Go for it!
Nor is there anything in Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court case that famously established judicial review. Nor is there in Cooper v. Aaron, the 1958 case in which the court ruled that its findings are the law of the land.
George Washington vetoed an apportionment bill in 1792 because it was unconstitutional. What was he thinking? If only he had a Ben Adler around to tell him what a fool he was.
Andrew Jackson vetoed the reauthorization of the national bank in 1832 because he believed it was unconstitutional. He added at the time that, “It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision.”
“Even the Supreme Court has never claimed that it is the only branch with the power or duty to interpret the Constitution,” says Jeff Sikkenga, a constitutional historian at Ashland University’s Ashbrook Center. “In fact, it has said that certain constitutional questions like war and peace are left to the political branches to decide.”
The debate over whether the courts are the final word on the Constitution is more than 200 years old. The debate over whether they are the sole arbiter of constitutionality is extremely recent and extremely silly.
But it’s also necessary because too many politicians — in both parties — have abdicated their most solemn duty: to support and defend the U.S. Constitution. George W. Bush signed campaign finance reform even though he thought much of it was unconstitutional. Nancy Pelosi thinks the Constitution has as much relevance as a pet rock. When asked if the health-care bill was Constitutional, her perpetually wide-open eyes grew perceptibly wider as she incredulously asked, “Are you serious?”
The real issue is quite simple. If more politicians were faithful to the Constitution, the government would be restrained. And restraining government is “weird,” “wacky” and “dangerous” to so many liberals today. (Jonah Goldberg).
And people who propose it, The Tea Party Movement, are “racists”, “stupid”, “morons” ,”idiots” ,”dumb”,”ignorant”,”fools”.
Fascinating.


A Reminder:
Unless something totally unforeseen occurs, Democrats are poised to take a real beating in November. Their response to the impending disaster has run the gamut. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is in denial: “One thing I know for sure is that Democrats will retain their majority in the House of Representatives.” Massachusetts Senator John Kerry is condescending: “We have an electorate that doesn’t always pay that much attention to what’s going on, so people are influenced by a simple slogan rather than the facts or the truth or what’s happening.” President Obama is angry: “It is inexcusable for any Democrat or progressive right now to stand on the sidelines in this midterm election.” Why is the electorate ready to kick Democrats to the curb? Here’s why:
* An “unstimulated” economy. The original Mother of All Stimulus packages, $787 billion dollars, quickly grew to an astounding $865 billion. It wasn’t enough. Congress pumped out another $26 billion in “supplemental” stimulus in August. The results? Unemployment in the private sector remains well above the eight percent Democrats promised, even as public sector workers who support Democrats were rewarded; our Democratically-controlled Congress has amassed more debt in the last four years than nearly the previous two hundred and thirty combined; the Keynesian economic model Democrats stand by is a colossal failure; the Summer of Recovery was a propaganda fiasco.
* The health care bill. The absolute epitome of ideological, public-be-damned arrogance. A horrendous compendium of bribes, exploding bureaucracy, runaway costs, written in secret and unread by those who passed it. It includes a mandate, likely un-Constitutional, forcing people to buy health insurance or pay a fine. The same administration which originally claimed the commerce clause of the Constitution made such a fine possible is now saying that the federal governments’s “power to tax” justifies it. Irrelevant. 60% of Americans want this monstrosity repealed, ASAP.
* The federal lawsuit against the state of Arizona. Again, it’s the arrogance, stupid. Despite all the hectoring from Democrats and the Obama administration about racist this, and xenophobic that, fair-minded Americans recognized four things: people have a right to protect their life and property, and if the federal government can’t or won’t do it, they have a right to do it themselves; the idea that anyone opposing the “rights” of illegal aliens is a bigot is nonsense on stilts; the ruling class in Washington, D.C. is holding genuine border control hostage to “comprehensive reform;” the glaring double-standard of suing Arizona for violating federal immigration statues, even as the feds turn a blind eye to hundreds of “sanctuary cities” with illegal protection directives unquestionably in conflict with federal law.
* The demonization of the Tea Party movement. Take your pick: teabaggers, racists, angry white men, fringe elements, bigots, Astro-turfers, etc. etc. Democrats and the media have tried every one, and every one has been a miserable failure for one overwhelmingly simple reason: decent Americans know they’re decent, and getting insulted by Democrats running the country into the ground has only stiffened their resolve. Progressives want to demonize people who believe in smaller government, fiscal responsibility and a desire to return to Constitutional principles? Why not attack people who believe in guns, and religion too? Oh wait. The president already did that as well.
* A hopelessly compromised media. Air America tanked, CNN is tanking, and ABC, NBC and CBS news programs have been shedding viewers at historically unprecedented rates—even as Fox and the Wall Street Journal prosper. Americans don’t mind people in the media expressing their opinions, as long as they’re characterized as opinions, but they seethe when such opinions are portrayed as “hard news.” They get even angrier when certain stories are “omitted” by those same organizations, especially when Americans recognize such omissions are calculated to protect the progressive agenda. I wonder if it occurs to either Democrats or their media water-carriers that a majority Americans may savor whacking both groups in November. Depressed looks on the faces of Nancy Pelosi and Katie Couric? In theater circles, that’s known as a “two-fer.”
* The Ground Zero mosque. Yet another reminder of the contempt progressives and their media enablers have for ordinary Americans who had the “temerity” to allow their feelings to be known. Despite every attempt to characterize these Americans as Islamo-phobic bigots, the public wasn’t buying, again for one overwhelmingly simple reason: decent Americans once again demonstrated their decency by separating the legality of the project from the appropriateness of it.
* The complete disconnect between the First Family and ordinary Americans. The golfing, the soirees, and the high-priced vacations have created the perception that we are living through another “let them eat cake” moment in history. On Tuesday, the president called the public schools in Washington, D.C. a “‘struggling’ system that doesn’t measure up to the needs of first daughters, Sasha and Malia.” Those would be the same public schools Congressional Democrats tossed 3,300 low-income kids back into when they killed funding for vouchers that had freed those kids from D.C.’s educational ghetto. The First Lady is hectoring Americans to eat healthier. Perhaps more Americans would if they could afford to: the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) stated in their Producer Price Index that the price of food increased 2.4% for March 2010. That’s the biggest increase in almost 30 years.
* The war on terror. A politically correct contingency operation against unnamed insurgents with a specific draw-down date? Democrats once again prove that all the talk about Afghanistan being the “good war” was complete rubbish. They want out, and victory—along with the heroic efforts of our men and women in harm’s way—be damned. Once again: has America ever fought another war where they knew the exact location of the enemy, had the ability to inflict possibly irreparable damage on them—and decided to split the difference instead? If you answered “Vietnam,” another progressively-instigated catastrophe resulting in the deaths of fifty-eight thousand American soldiers and three million innocent Asians, go to the head of the class. And when is that civilian trial of the 9/11 perpetrators scheduled to begin?
* Czars and nationalization. The Obama administration and Congressional Democrats may bristle when Americans call them socialists, but the nationalization of banks, car and insurance companies, student loans and healthcare sure isn’t free-market capitalism. Neither is wiping out oil jobs in Louisiana with a government-mandated ban on offshore drilling—after the feds completely bungled their role in cleaning up the spill which engendered it. Unelected czars who answer to no one but the president, along with out-of-control government agencies such as the EPA have made it clear to many Americans that this administration often considers Congress a completely unnecessary component of governance, especially if they don’t kowtow to the president’s agenda.
* “Unexceptional” America. Progressive contempt for the values and traditions which make this the greatest country on earth can no longer be disguised. An American president who “believe(s) in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism” has made it plain that this is not a great nation which needs tweaking, but a fundamentally flawed one needing a complete progressive make-over. Once one understands this basic premise, everything this administration and Democratically-controlled Congress does makes sense. All of it centers around the ridiculous premise that America owes the world an apology for any number of shortcomings, many of which can only be alleviated by government-mandated “social justice.” That would be the same social justice which demanded—and still demands—that Americans manifestly unqualified to own homes be given mortgages, regardless.
Unknown to the majority of Americans, this precise mindset was part of the financial “reform” bill which also requires banks to lend a certain percentage of capital to minority-owned businesses, even if it means lowering their lending standards. Apparently progressives won’t be satisfied with their odious social-engineering schemes until every sector of the American economy bears a striking resemblance to the housing sector. So far, Americans support financial reform because it’s been framed as “Main Street versus “Wall Street.” It’s not. Like every other initiative undertaken by this Congress and this administration, it’s the elevation of irresponsible and dishonest Americans over those willing to accept the consequences of their own behavior.
There you have it. Democratic control for four years in Congress, and two in the White House has been exactly what many predicted: an ideologically-driven disaster of epic proportions. For years, progressives obfuscated their true intentions, because even they knew most Americans couldn’t stomach them. The elections of 2006 and 2008 changed everything. Progressives bought into their own hype, believing they had pulled off a multi-generational transformation of the American mindset. As a result, they showed Americans their true colors: unbridled arrogance, utter contempt for the average citizen’s intellect, and a ham-fisted, never let a crisis go to waste determination to bend the electorate to their will, using government as a club.
That’s why they’re going down in November. And the most satisfying aspect of the whole scenario is this: despite every attempt they’ve made to blame anyone and everyone else for their problems, they brought it on themselves. (Arnold Ahlert)
And don’t forget the LARGEST TAX INCREASE IN AMERICAN HISTORY during a recession (or “jobless recovery”) that Congress was too chicken to vote on stopping.

But don’t worry, it’s all those damn Republican’s fault!!
And George W. Bush.
The Banks.
CEOs
Corporate America.
Wall Street.
Teabaggers.
The Right Wingers.
Christians.
“The Rich”
FOX News
Rupert Murdoch (who owns Fox)
Talk Radio
Did I leave anyone out?
Oh, yeah, DEMOCRATS!

Set Your Agenda on Spin!

How you say something can effect how it’s perceived.

That is, if you can find it.

Take yesterday’s preliminary hearing on SB 1070.

The Los Angeles Times, which is an open borders pro-illegal newspaper opened with:

A federal judge on Thursday expressed skepticism about the constitutionality of a key part of Arizona’s controversial immigration law, but did not say whether she would prevent the measure from taking effect next week.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton said during a hearing that the provision that makes it a state crime to lack immigration documents apparently conflicts with a Supreme Court ruling that says states cannot create their own immigration registration systems.

John Bouma, a lawyer representing Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer in the seven lawsuits seeking to block implementation of the measure, tried to convince Bolton otherwise. Then he gave up.

“I didn’t have the feeling I persuaded you last week either,” he said, referring to similar arguments on another lawsuit.

Sounds bad doesn’t it? But consider the source.

But my favourite that I’ve seen is good ole’ Katie Couric, CBS NEWS:

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”


If those words were written in Arizona today, they might include a footnote: just make sure they have their papers.

No bias here. :)

They also have stories on Neo-Nazis patrolling the border and a puff piece on the violence at the border that says it isn’t so bad.

Diminish,distract,and destroy. Liberal “journalism” in action.

Then you read The AP story on The Daily Caller:

PHOENIX (AP) — The judge who will decide whether Arizona’s new immigration law is constitutional hasn’t indicated whether she’ll put the statute on hold before it takes effect next week and had some pointed questions Thursday for challengers at two court hearings.


U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton also went beyond dry legal analysis to point out some of the everyday realities of illegal immigration and how that applies to the new law.


Without prodding from attorneys, the judge noted that the federal government erected signs in a wilderness area south of Phoenix that warn visitors about immigrant and drug smugglers passing through public lands. She said the stash houses where smugglers hide immigrants from Mexico before bringing them into the country’s interior have become a fixture on the news in Arizona.


“You can barely go a day without a location being found in Phoenix where there are numerous people being harbored,” said Bolton, who didn’t issue a ruling after the two hearings.

Notice the Difference? :)

Now that couldn’t be media bias now could it?

Perish the thought! :)

Especially after the “Journolist” releases. :)

But I will at least say it was nice to see this buried down at the bottom of the Times article:

“I guess we have some explanation of why we have so many [smugglers] and aliens unlawfully here,” Bouma said. “The federal government doesn’t want them prosecuted and doesn’t think the state should.”

:)

But then it followed immediately with this liberal lie: Government statistics show that the Obama administration has deported more illegal immigrants annually than the George W. Bush administration.

So what, he’s spent as much as Bush did in 8 years in 18 months. But you won’t here that from the Journo-List inspired liberal press.

But again, it’s the liberal Bush Derangement Syndrome coming back up like a bad case of acid reflux.

Then comes: Arizona is the favorite crossing point for illegal entrants from Mexico, and even though the numbers have dropped off during the recession, fears of violence from Mexican drug traffickers persist. Bouma noted a sign the federal Bureau of Land Management recently posted in the desert 30 miles south of Phoenix:


“Danger — Public Warning. Travel Not Recommended. Active Drug and Human Smuggling Area.”


Bolton said she had seen pictures of the sign, heavily publicized by Brewer, and that it was “awful.”

At the very end. Do you not think this was important?

Daily Caller:

Attorney John Bouma, who is defending the law on behalf of Gov. Jan Brewer, said the federal government wants to keep its authority while turning a blind eye to illegal immigrants.


“You can’t catch them if you don’t know about them. They don’t want to know about them,” he said.


Bouma told Bolton that those challenging the law haven’t demonstrated that anyone would suffer actual harm if it takes effect, and that facts — not mere speculation — must be shown.


“In Arizona we have a tremendous Hispanic heritage. To think that everybody that’s Hispanic is going to be stopped and questioned … defies reality,” Bouma said. “All this hypothetical that we’re going to go out and arrest everybody that’s Hispanic, look around. That’s impossible.”

Yeah, don’t tell the Ministry of Truth that there are Hispanics who are for SB1070, it will be another “Uncle Tom” moment, or is that “Uncle Jose”.

The New York Times opens with a picture of Hispanic Protesters…gee no bias there. :)

With just a week remaining before Arizona’s stringent new immigration law is set to take effect, a federal judge in Phoenix heard, for the first time, from Obama administration lawyers urging her to strike down the controversial legislation while dozens of demonstrators argued both sides outside the courthouse.


As protesters blocked traffic, chanted, sang, yelled and banged on bass drums, lawyers from the Justice Department and for the State of Arizona sparred over whether the law, known locally as SB1070, violates the United States Constitution’s supremacy clause, which says federal law generally trumps state law. The federal judge, Susan R. Bolton, asked pointed questions of both sides, but made no ruling from the bench before adjourning at 3 p.m.

So it’s all about the protesters.

Edwin S. Kneedler, the lawyer for the federal government, argued that the federal government has the sole authority to enforce immigration laws under the Constitution and that Arizona was, in essence, establishing its own immigration policy — which in some cases would be stricter than the federal law and does not take into account either humanitarian concerns or the government’s foreign policy goals.

Touchy-feely “feel good” Lies. Gee, the liberal press never does that… :)

“The regulation of immigration is unquestionably, exclusively, a federal power,” he said.

Buried in the middle of the article: John J. Bouma, asserted that the state law actually mirrors the letter of the federal law, even if that federal law is not enforced fully in practice. He argued the state had every right to ask its peace officers to call up federal authorities and check on a person’s immigration status during routine traffic stops or other arrests, even if it created a headache for federal authorities.

“You can’t catch them if you don’t know about them, and they don’t want to know about them — that’s what they are saying,” Mr. Bouma said, gesturing to the Justice Department lawyers.

“What we get is the plaintiff over here saying we cannot do anything,” he added. “That it’s not Arizona’s problem, that we should just live with it.”

As Judge Bolton questioned the federal government’s counsel, she expressed skepticism that the state was indeed carrying out its own immigration enforcement policy. She asked several times whether the statute would actually take the decision about what to do with an illegal immigrant away from federal authorities.

“How does it become immigration enforcement policy? It’s an immigration status check,” she said. “Arizona cannot remove anybody, and they don’t purport they can.”
So the meat is buried, and the headlines are biased.

About 30 protesters blocked traffic, many wearing T-shirts that said “Stop the Hate.” Several unfurled a large, white banner that blared “Stop SB1070. We will not comply.” Others in the group held a banner in Spanish saying: “There is no problem with immigration; there is a problem with capitalism. Revolution is the solution.” After two hours, the police cleared the intersection and arrested seven people.

Ah, LA RAZA and MeCHA showed up… :)

Antoinette Murray, 45, said she feared the law would prompt police officers to stop citizens who look Hispanic and arrest them if they cannot produce the right documents. “If they look at someone and they are of Mexican descent, they are going to be guilty until proven innocent,” she said. “It makes you guilty for being brown.”

The a priori racism argument yet again.

Sound familiar:

“You can imagine, if you are a Hispanic American in Arizona …” the president said Tuesday at a campaign-style appearance in Iowa, “suddenly, if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to be harassed.”–President Obama April 29, 2010.

Outside the courthouse, people of all political stripes mounted noisy demonstrations. Charlene Greenwood, 46 and unemployed, described herself as a Tea Party member, wore a semiautomatic pistol on her hip and signs that read, “Illegal immigrants have better health care than I do” and, “Bank robbers, drug dealers and prostitutes are just trying to support their families too.”

So you go for the most extreme “loon” you can find and highlight them. No bias there.

In Sci-Fi Fandom this is known as “going for the guy in the spock ears” only. The most extreme element is normal to the person who wants to be condescending to begin with.

To confirm the stereotype.

“And it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,” –Candidate Obama said. 4/12/2008

But the old grey lady had to end their piece with one more sob story:

Among the protesters were several illegal immigrants who were waiting for judges to decide their cases. Rudy Gomez, 37, said he came to the country illegally from Guatemala in 1997 and has been working as a roofer ever since.

He has four children and fears he may be caught and deported in the crackdown envisioned under the law, he said. “I’m not doing anything wrong,” he said. “This is my home. This is where I live.”

Boo Frickin’-Hoo!

Come here legally and people will welcome you.

But he’s been here 13 years. Has 4 kids that we are undoubtedly paying for (education, health care,etc) , and he’s taken a construction job from a legal american.

And we are supposed to look the other way.

Because it’s the federal government’s job to look the other way.

And if you dare look, the almighty OZ will crush you where you stand!

I don’t think so.

“A law that is unenforced is no law at all,” said John Bouma, the lawyer representing Arizona. “We have had repeated pleas … that have basically gone unheeded.”(Reuters)

“Why can’t Arizona be as inhospitable as they wish to people who have entered or remained in the United States?” U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton
asked in a pointed exchange with Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler. Kneedler responded to her query about why Arizona authorities don’t have the right to be inhospitable to illegal immigrants by saying the law has given the state the power to enforce immigration law “in, frankly, an unprecedented and dramatic way.”(WP)

States’ Rights: A federal judge hears arguments over whether a state law that mirrors federal law on immigration should take effect next week. Can a state protect its borders when the federal government won’t?

Critics of Arizona’s enlisting local police to enforce federal immigration law fail to note the existence of the federal 287(g) program, which trains local police to do just that. The Department of Homeland Security has memoranda of agreements (MOAs) with some 70 state and local law enforcement agencies to participate in 287(g) partnerships to enforce federal law. Nine of these jurisdictions are in Arizona, and all of the agreements were inked while Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano was Arizona governor.

Judge Bolton also heard arguments on whether the Arizona law should be put on hold for now and whether the federal lawsuit should be dismissed. Unfortunately, illegal immigration, a raging drug war in Mexico and an increasing presence by Hezbollah south of the border cannot be put on hold. As the case began, Mexican authorities fought raging gun battles in Nuevo Laredo, across the border from Laredo, Texas. Nuevo Laredo is among several northern cities under siege from a turf battle between the Gulf cartel and its former enforcers, the Zetas gang of hit men. Violence and kidnappings have spilled across our border. The case for border security and immigration enforcement have never been stronger.

A bid by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., to block the suit failed 55-43 with five Democrats voting with him and two Republicans siding with the Department of Justice. Sens. Mike Johanns of Nebraska and George Voinovich of Ohio voted against Arizona and in favor of open borders.

Rhode Island has a policy issued through an executive order identical to Arizona’s law. Rhode Island has not been sued, probably because its policy was not enacted in an election cycle. Nine other states have joined in a legal brief supporting Arizona in federal court, and a number of states are considering similar laws.

Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox has declared the Wolverine State the lead state backing the Arizona law in court. It has filed a brief in federal court on behalf of Alabama, Florida, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia.

“Arizona, Michigan and every other state has the authority to enforce immigration laws, and it is appalling to see President Obama use taxpayer dollars to stop a state’s efforts to protect its own borders,” Cox said in a statement. We think so too.

The duty of this administration is to protect the borders of the United States and to enforce our laws, not to wage a legal war against Arizona for doing what the feds have failed to do. (IBD)

The power the Feds refuse to use and want bar anyone else from using.

Now that’s protecting your base and your base wanna-be’s, just not your citizens.

But what else would you expect from our “post-racial” President and his takeover-happy apparatchik-minded Liberals.

Will The State Defendent Please Rise

Statement by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer
PHOENIX – “Today I was notified that the federal government has filed a lawsuit against the State of Arizona.  It is wrong that our own federal government is suing the people of Arizona for helping to enforce federal immigration law.  As a direct result of failed and inconsistent federal enforcement, Arizona is under attack from violent Mexican drug and immigrant smuggling cartels.  Now, Arizona is under attack in federal court from President Obama and his Department of Justice.  Today’s filing is nothing more than a massive waste of taxpayer funds.  These funds could be better used against the violent Mexican cartels than the people of Arizona.
“The truth is the Arizona law is both reasonable and constitutional.  It mirrors substantially what has been federal law in the United States for many decades.  Arizona’s law is designed to complement, not supplant, enforcement of federal immigration laws.  Despite the Department of Justice’s claims in paragraph 62 of today’s lawsuit, Arizona is not trying ‘to establish its own immigration policy’ or ‘directly regulate the immigration status of aliens.’  Arizona Revised Statutes § 11-1051(E) states that the federal government, along with local law enforcement officers authorized by the federal government, can only determine an alien’s immigration status.   Subsection (L) of that same section goes on to state that the law ‘shall be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration.’
“The irony is that President Obama’s Administration has chosen to sue Arizona for helping to enforce federal immigration law and not sue local governments that have adopted a patchwork of ‘sanctuary’ policies that directly violate federal law. These patchwork local ‘sanctuary’ policies instruct the police not to cooperate with federal immigration officials.
“The best thing government can do is to create a stable, predictable environment, governed by an easily understood set of rules or laws. We do not need to make this more complicated than it already is.  We must first and foremost create a secure border. Enhanced trade, economic opportunity and freedom will surely follow.
“I am pleased that President Obama and the Department of Justice did not pursue the baseless claims of illegal racial profiling in the lawsuit.   When signing S.B. 1070, I said, ‘My signature today represents my steadfast support for enforcing the law — both against illegal immigration AND against racial profiling.’ Arizona’s law expressly prohibits unconstitutional racial profiling.  However, words are not enough.  For this reason, I ordered the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board (AZPOST) to develop training on the new law for Arizona’s police officers.   AZPOST has completed the training course and has published it for the all world to see at www.azpost.state.az.us/SB1070infocenter.htm.  AZPOST has done its job professionally and served Arizona well.
“I will not stop fighting to protect the citizens of Arizona, and to defend Arizonans in federal court.  I have set up a legal defense fund to pay the substantial legal fees that Arizona has been, and will be, forced to incur as a result of all of these lawsuits.  Contributions to the Border Security and Immigration Defense Fund can be made at www.keepazsafe.com.  My legal team will not hesitate to assert the rights of the State of Arizona in this matter.  Arizona will ultimately prevail against the lawsuits – including this latest assault by the Obama Administration. Our laws will be found to be constitutional – because that is exactly what they are.”
So the President is playing politics with National Security.
The Dept. of Justice that dropped the Black Panther case because of race politics, is now suing Arizona for race politics.
Politics. Politics. Politics.
The exploitation of Illegal aliens reaches a new low.
“Setting immigration policy and enforcing immigration laws is a national responsibility,” US Attorney General Eric Holder said in the statement.
Arizona, the Justice Department said, “crossed a constitutional line.”
However, he added, “diverting federal resources away from dangerous aliens such as terrorism suspects and aliens with criminal records will impact the entire country’s safety.”
Yeah, stopping them coming across a porous border is definitely “diverting”!!
“The American people must wonder whether the Obama administration is really committed to securing the border when it sues a state that is simply trying to protect its people by enforcing immigration law,” Republicans John McCain and Jon Kyl said in a joint statement.
The real problem is that BOTH parties are not interested in securing the border, for different reasons, but neither wants to do it.
But only the Democrats and this President wants to sue a State to prevent anyone from doing something about it!
So the federal government will use taxpayers money to sue taxpayers for wanting security.
America, what a country!
“The nation’s immigration laws reflect a careful and considered balance of national law enforcement, foreign relations, and humanitarian interests,” the suit says.
<>
The lawsuit goes on to say that 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.”
So if the government wants to ignore national security and border security you aren’t allowed to do anything about it!
We are from the Government and we are here to protect you!
That is, if you’re politically advantageous to us, or we want to pander to you.
Otherwise, screw you!
When U.S. cities and even entire states declare themselves to be “sanctuaries” for illegal aliens, they act outside the law, and by their actions could be charged with a felony for each violation of federal law by “concealing, harboring, or sheltering illegal aliens” (8 U.S. Code, sections 1324 and 1325; Immigration and Naturalization Act sections 274 and 275).
Funny that President Obama and Eric Holder have no problem with “sanctuary” cities encroaching on immigration policy and enforcement.
It’s all Politics, all the time.
We, the Government, aren’t going to do anything about the Border, but you’re not allowed to do anything about it either!
So much for Protect from all enemies foreign and domestic.
Only if they are perceived to be politically advantageous to us.
Doesn’t that make you feel safer!