Palin to Obama: 'Do your job, secure our border'

[DGirl101]

Massachusetts proceeded on its own. So can your state and my state. I'm glad mine didn't

Can you explain to me something?

If Massachusetts passed their own Health Reform bill, before the Federal Health Reform Bill, doesn't that kind of take away the arguement, that Arizona passing it's own bill on Immigration before Federal Immigration Reform Bill, is illegal?

 

[DGirl101]

you do know that the Republicans did same thing ("No. No. No.") during Bush Administration? They rejected President Bush's immigration plan - the very similar plan that Obama is using... and yet... they're throwing their support for Arizona but not federal immigration reform?

I am confused... deeply confused..

Yes I do know that they were against it then when Bush was in Office.

I'm sorry if I am confusing you Jiro...lol

I don't mean to. I am one of the people that sits on the fence and can actually see the points of views of every side. I never take sides, it only serves to put me in hot water, and having living the 'fish bowl life' I am a people watcher. You know....'Bird watcher' but instead 'People watcher'; without the binoculars of course!

 

[TXgolfer]

Can you explain to me something?

If Massachusetts passed their own Health Reform bill, before the Federal Health Reform Bill, doesn't that kind of take away the arguement, that Arizona passing it's own bill on Immigration before Federal Immigration Reform Bill, is illegal?

Excellent Question....

of course you are going to get a BS answer about how the Federal govt already had immigration laws in place. But they also had medicare and such in place before MA passed it's health care bill

 

[Foxrac]

It is nice to see any states pass the health care reform, such as universal health care but pretty hard to budget if state want taxes to be lower.

 

[Jiro]

Yes I do know that they were against it then when Bush was in Office.

I'm sorry if I am confusing you Jiro...lol

I don't mean to. I am one of the people that sits on the fence and can actually see the points of views of every side. I never take sides, it only serves to put me in hot water, and having living the 'fish bowl life' I am a people watcher. You know....'Bird watcher' but instead 'People watcher'; without the binoculars of course!

all excellent questions! I'll answer it the best I can to the best of my knowledge.

 

[Jiro]

Can you explain to me something?

If Massachusetts passed their own Health Reform bill, before the Federal Health Reform Bill, doesn't that kind of take away the arguement, that Arizona passing it's own bill on Immigration before Federal Immigration Reform Bill, is illegal?

First - let us talk very briefly about health care. The federal health care reform aka Obamacare. Guess what? It is not actually a federal health insurance. It's actually a mandatory state health insurance law - just like mandatory car insurance which is not a federal law. Massachusetts as a state is allowed to regulate medical practice and establish standards of medical care.

Now - let us talk about immigration laws. It is federal responsibility to protect the international borders and it is the state responsibility to protect its internal affair. The illegals are illegally entering America as a nation - thru international border, not state.... hence the responsibility lays on federal government to catch them and deport them back. For many decades, the Supreme Court has repeatedly granted Congress and federal government with broad & exclusive authority over immigration/naturalization/deportation... therefore enacting the state law attempting to regulate immigration law that is different from federal immigration law or superseded federal immigration law is a violation of Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. However - because the immigration stuff is nowhere written in the Constitution - the state laws preempted the federal laws which means the state can enact state immigration law as long as it doesn't violate federal laws.

California's Proposition 187 was ruled unconstitutional because California attempted to DIRECTLY regulate immigration itself.... which is federal responsibility. and also few other things such as denying education and public service to illegal aliens and their children.. which is a violation of federal law.

A city in Texas called Farmers Branch enacted an ordinance that requires landlords to perform immigration status check on those who wants to rent from them. This was found unconstitutional as they attempted to DIRECTLY regulate immigration itself without deferring it to federal government.

There was a proposal called CLEAR Act back in 2003 (Clear Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal Act of 2003) authored by late House Rep. Charles Norwood of Georgia. It would compel the state/local polices to enforce federal immigration law otherwise the state/town will not be federally reimbursed for any expenses related to illegal aliens. This bill was not popular and it did not pass. I believe this bill is a clear violation of 10th Amendment as the federal government and Congress cannot compel the states to enforce the federal laws.

So to answer your question regarding Arizona's immigration law that mirrors federal immigration law... I believe it is unconstitutional and dumb of them to create redundancy laws.

Why unconstitutional? Well - 2 things:
1) one big question is... can you actually make it a state crime when it's already a federal crime? a very interesting legal puzzle for Supreme Court to clarify
2) The original Arizona's new immigration law requires state/local police to determine one's immigration status after any encounter... like 2 cases I mentioned above - without any federal cooperation, it is illegal for state to enforce civil violation of immigration law.

Because we currently have State Criminal Alien Assistant Program (SCAAP). The federal government reimburses the state of costs incurred incarcerating illegal aliens charged with state/local felony/misdemeanor. The current laws allow state/local police officers to determine one's immigration status after the crime. The original version of Arizona's new immigration law required police officers to determine one's immigration status after pretty much any violations including the very very minor charge and also any police encounter relating to "Reasonable Suspicion" and "Lawful Contact."

Under Terry Stops in Arizona - you are required to give out your full name. You are not required to show the ID. However - because you are not required to show the ID, this new immigration law enables officers to inquire about immigration status based on "reasonable suspicion" that you are in this country illegally. Because the law is so broad, this is a serious police harassment.

1 week later after signing new immigration law, the revision was added. The new version narrowed the scope of law... to same thing as federal law and current law which stated that police officer can inquire about immigration status ONLY during Terry Stops or arrests unrelated to one's immigration status (ie. drunk driving, murder, rape, etc.). We already have this law!!!

Hope my long-ass post answers your question

 

[Jiro]

This Federal Immigration Reform bill, is it the same as the Arizona Bill?

other way around. Arizona's new immigration law plus revised laws are the same as current federal immigration law and current state laws.

Do you happen to have a link to let me look at concerning the Immigration Reform bill President Bush made and Obama's as well? I'd like to look at them if you don't mind?

President Bush's immigration policy - Senate kills Bush immigration reform bill | Reuters

The bill tied tough border security and workplace enforcement measures to a plan to legalize an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants, most from Latin America, and to create a temporary worker program sought by business groups.

It also would have created a merit-based system for future immigrants, something conservative Republicans sought.

President Obama's immigration policy - Immigration | The White House
Learning from Bush's failed immigration policy, he revised some of it to attract GOP's support but it's still fundamentally same thing (link)

 

[jillio]

First - let us talk very briefly about health care. The federal health care reform aka Obamacare. Guess what? It is not actually a federal health insurance. It's actually a mandatory state health insurance law - just like mandatory car insurance which is not a federal law. Massachusetts as a state is allowed to regulate medical practice and establish standards of medical care.

Now - let us talk about immigration laws. It is federal responsibility to protect the international borders and it is the state responsibility to protect its internal affair. The illegals are illegally entering America as a nation - thru international border, not state.... hence the responsibility lays on federal government to catch them and deport them back. For many decades, the Supreme Court has repeatedly granted Congress and federal government with broad & exclusive authority over immigration/naturalization/deportation... therefore enacting the state law attempting to regulate immigration law that is different from federal immigration law or superseded federal immigration law is a violation of Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. However - because the immigration stuff is nowhere written in the Constitution - the state laws preempted the federal laws which means the state can enact state immigration law as long as it doesn't violate federal laws.

California's Proposition 187 was ruled unconstitutional because California attempted to DIRECTLY regulate immigration itself.... which is federal responsibility. and also few other things such as denying education and public service to illegal aliens and their children.. which is a violation of federal law.

A city in Texas called Farmers Branch enacted an ordinance that requires landlords to perform immigration status check on those who wants to rent from them. This was found unconstitutional as they attempted to DIRECTLY regulate immigration itself without deferring it to federal government.

There was a proposal called CLEAR Act back in 2003 (Clear Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal Act of 2003) authored by late House Rep. Charles Norwood of Georgia. It would compel the state/local polices to enforce federal immigration law otherwise the state/town will not be federally reimbursed for any expenses related to illegal aliens. This bill was not popular and it did not pass. I believe this bill is a clear violation of 10th Amendment as the federal government and Congress cannot compel the states to enforce the federal laws.

So to answer your question regarding Arizona's immigration law that mirrors federal immigration law... I believe it is unconstitutional and dumb of them to create redundancy laws.

Why unconstitutional? Well - 2 things:
1) one big question is... can you actually make it a state crime when it's already a federal crime? a very interesting legal puzzle for Supreme Court to clarify
2) The original Arizona's new immigration law requires state/local police to determine one's immigration status after any encounter... like 2 cases I mentioned above - without any federal cooperation, it is illegal for state to enforce civil violation of immigration law.

Because we currently have State Criminal Alien Assistant Program (SCAAP). The federal government reimburses the state of costs incurred incarcerating illegal aliens charged with state/local felony/misdemeanor. The current laws allow state/local police officers to determine one's immigration status after the crime. The original version of Arizona's new immigration law required police officers to determine one's immigration status after pretty much any violations including the very very minor charge and also any police encounter relating to "Reasonable Suspicion" and "Lawful Contact."

Under Terry Stops in Arizona - you are required to give out your full name. You are not required to show the ID. However - because you are not required to show the ID, this new immigration law enables officers to inquire about immigration status based on "reasonable suspicion" that you are in this country illegally. Because the law is so broad, this is a serious police harassment.

1 week later after signing new immigration law, the revision was added. The new version narrowed the scope of law... to same thing as federal law and current law which stated that police officer can inquire about immigration status ONLY during Terry Stops or arrests unrelated to one's immigration status (ie. drunk driving, murder, rape, etc.). We already have this law!!!

Hope my long-ass post answers your question

May be long ass, but it is an excellent post. Ever considered teaching as a profession?

 

[Jiro]

May be long ass, but it is an excellent post. Ever considered teaching as a profession?

yup! when I'm old fart

 

[TXgolfer]

First - let us talk very briefly about health care. The federal health care reform aka Obamacare. Guess what? It is not actually a federal health insurance. It's actually a mandatory state health insurance law - just like mandatory car insurance which is not a federal law. Massachusetts as a state is allowed to regulate medical practice and establish standards of medical care. :

Not true. It is in fact a Federal law with the IRS being used to enforce the law against individuals.

Now - let us talk about immigration laws. It is federal responsibility to protect the international borders and it is the state responsibility to protect its internal affair. The illegals are illegally entering America as a nation - thru international border, not state.... hence the responsibility lays on federal government to catch them and deport them back. For many decades, the Supreme Court has repeatedly granted Congress and federal government with broad & exclusive authority over immigration/naturalization/deportation... therefore enacting the state law attempting to regulate immigration law that is different from federal immigration law or superseded federal immigration law is a violation of Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. However - because the immigration stuff is nowhere written in the Constitution - the state laws preempted the federal laws which means the state can enact state immigration law as long as it doesn't violate federal laws.

Pretty much right....although muddled. The main point.....States can make laws regarding immigration as long as the laws do not violate Federal law.

California's Proposition 187 was ruled unconstitutional because California attempted to DIRECTLY regulate immigration itself.... which is federal responsibility. and also few other things such as denying education and public service to illegal aliens and their children.. which is a violation of federal law.

A city in Texas called Farmers Branch enacted an ordinance that requires landlords to perform immigration status check on those who wants to rent from them. This was found unconstitutional as they attempted to DIRECTLY regulate immigration itself without deferring it to federal government.

As for Farmers Branch, the ruling was made by one Judge, Jane Boyle and the ruling is expected to be reversed. The Farmers Branch law in no way violates Federal law. It is similar to Counties requiring proof of residency at their colleges. Counties even charge international students a higher rate of tuition. All legal.

There was a proposal called CLEAR Act back in 2003 (Clear Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal Act of 2003) authored by late House Rep. Charles Norwood of Georgia. It would compel the state/local polices to enforce federal immigration law otherwise the state/town will not be federally reimbursed for any expenses related to illegal aliens. This bill was not popular and it did not pass. I believe this bill is a clear violation of 10th Amendment as the federal government and Congress cannot compel the states to enforce the federal laws.

So to answer your question regarding Arizona's immigration law that mirrors federal immigration law... I believe it is unconstitutional and dumb of them to create redundancy laws.

Why unconstitutional? Well - 2 things:
1) one big question is... can you actually make it a state crime when it's already a federal crime? a very interesting legal puzzle for Supreme Court to clarify
2) The original Arizona's new immigration law requires state/local police to determine one's immigration status after any encounter... like 2 cases I mentioned above - without any federal cooperation, it is illegal for state to enforce civil violation of immigration law.

Interesting way of answering a question.

1) this is hardly a legal puzzle. In fact it is considered a great legal tool to have duplicate state and federal laws. And we have many of them. Remember Michael Vick and the dogfighting????

2)Since the law has been amended why are we rehashing the original version??? Also you gave two cases above but one is pending appeal. The quashing of 187 in no way means that under no circumstances can a state enforce immigration laws. It simple means 187 went too far.

Because we currently have State Criminal Alien Assistant Program (SCAAP). The federal government reimburses the state of costs incurred incarcerating illegal aliens charged with state/local felony/misdemeanor. The current laws allow state/local police officers to determine one's immigration status after the crime. The original version of Arizona's new immigration law required police officers to determine one's immigration status after pretty much any violations including the very very minor charge and also any police encounter relating to "Reasonable Suspicion" and "Lawful Contact."

Again with the original version. Perhaps your post would have been shorter if you had stuck to the amended version

Under Terry Stops in Arizona - you are required to give out your full name. You are not required to show the ID. However - because you are not required to show the ID, this new immigration law enables officers to inquire about immigration status based on "reasonable suspicion" that you are in this country illegally. Because the law is so broad, this is a serious police harassment.

1 week later after signing new immigration law, the revision was added. The new version narrowed the scope of law... to same thing as federal law and current law which stated that police officer can inquire about immigration status ONLY during Terry Stops or arrests unrelated to one's immigration status (ie. drunk driving, murder, rape, etc.). We already have this law!!!

Why complain then???

 

[Jiro]

*waiting for some kind of cheering for TXGolfer*

hmm where's he?

 

[Jiro]

Not true. It is in fact a Federal law with the IRS being used to enforce the law against individuals.

I don't follow. the mandatory health insurance under Obamacare is not a federal law... it's the state law. About IRS - you are free to not pay for federal tax but the federal government cannot compel the state to arrest you on federal charge. But most states comply so.......

Pretty much right....although muddled. The main point.....States can make laws regarding immigration as long as the laws do not violate Federal law.

yes but the big question here is - can the state make it a state crime if it's already a federal crime? if this is allowed - what is the legal implication?

As for Farmers Branch, the ruling was made by one Judge, Jane Boyle and the ruling is expected to be reversed. The Farmers Branch law in no way violates Federal law.

struck down.... twice...... by 2 federal judges. US District Judge Sam Lindsay and US District Judge Jane Doyle. Sorry but Farmers Branch ordinance violated the federal law... said by 2 federal judges.

It is similar to Counties requiring proof of residency at their colleges. Counties even charge international students a higher rate of tuition. All legal.

I'm not sure where you're going with this tuition stuff. It's not federal responsibility to regulate the tuition rate. There's no federal cap on tuition rate. The counties can require proof of residency at their colleges because they have agreement with federal government... Farmers Branch did no such thing.... hence its ordinance was ruled unconstitutional. twice.

Interesting way of answering a question.

1) this is hardly a legal puzzle. In fact it is considered a great legal tool to have duplicate state and federal laws. And we have many of them. Remember Michael Vick and the dogfighting????

there was no federal law on dog fighting, cock fighting, etc. at that time. Since that incident, President Bush signed Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act. Because there was no federal law on dog fighting, the federal government got clever with this. They charged Michael Vick under Commerce Clause because Michael Vick had an "dog fighting enterprise" in several states - thus falls under federal jurisdiction. clever.

2)Since the law has been amended why are we rehashing the original version??? Also you gave two cases above but one is pending appeal. The quashing of 187 in no way means that under no circumstances can a state enforce immigration laws. It simple means 187 went too far.

the quashing of 187 means the state cannot regulate the federal immigration law on its own. and yes they went too far as well.

Again with the original version. Perhaps your post would have been shorter if you had stuck to the amended version

It is very important to explain the original and amended version.

Why complain then???

IMO - they purposely muddled its new immigration law by mirroring it after federal law as a smokescreen to include little things to give more authority to state/local police. Previously - the state/local police are NOT required to ask for proof of immigration status. However - many police departments have its own policy that forbids asking for proof of immigration status. Now with this new state law - it is requiring state/local police to ask for proof of immigration status.

 

[jillio]

And yet another good one!

 

[Steinhauer]

I don't follow. the mandatory health insurance under Obamacare is not a federal law... it's the state law. About IRS - you are free to not pay for federal tax but the federal government cannot compel the state to arrest you on federal charge. But most states comply so.......


yes but the big question here is - can the state make it a state crime if it's already a federal crime? if this is allowed - what is the legal implication?


struck down.... twice...... by 2 federal judges. US District Judge Sam Lindsay and US District Judge Jane Doyle. Sorry but Farmers Branch ordinance violated the federal law... as said by 2 federal judges.


I'm not sure where you're going with this tuition stuff. It's not federal responsibility to regulate the tuition rate. There's no federal cap on tuition rate. The counties can require proof of residency at their colleges because they have agreement with federal government... Farmers Branch did no such thing.... hence its ordinance was ruled unconstitutional. twice.





there was no federal law on dog fighting, cock fighting, etc. at that time. Since that incident, President Bush signed Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act. Because there was no federal law on dog fighting, the federal government got clever with this. They charged Michael Vick under Commerce Clause because Michael Vick had an "dog fighting enterprise" in several states - thus falls under federal jurisdiction. clever.


the quashing of 187 means the state cannot regulate the federal immigration law on its own. and yes they went too far as well.


It is very important to explain the original and amended version.


IMO - they purposely muddled its new immigration law by mirroring it after federal law as a smokescreen to include little things to give more authority to state/local police. Previously - the state/local police are NOT required to ask for proof of immigration status. However - many police departments have its own policy that forbids asking for proof of immigration status. Now with this new state law - it is requiring state/local police to ask for proof of immigration status.

Why not pass a law, at the Federal level, requiring ICE to do its job?

 

[jillio]

Why not pass a law, at the Federal level, requiring ICE to do its job?

Again with the nonsense. If it is Federal Law, ICE is already required to follow it.:roll: And then you turn around and preach about less government control.:roll: Please, for the sake of your sanity, find a position and be consistent with it.

 

[Jiro]

Why not pass a law, at the Federal level, requiring ICE to do its job?

a perfect legal-version example of perpetual motion. good one. I should tell that to my lawyer friends.

 

[Jiro]

Arizona, a rogue state at war

San Diego, California (CNN) -- Don't be surprised if, any day now, you read that the People's Republic of Arizona is in the market for nuclear warheads to put an end, once and for all, to illegal immigration on its southern border. After all, it's the next logical step for the rogue state.

This week, to advance the narrative that Arizona has no choice but to do its own immigration enforcement because the federal government is asleep at the switch, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer called for air support. Brewer requested helicopters and unmanned aerial vehicles from the White House to patrol the border region with Mexico.

In a letter to President Obama, Brewer asked that the National Guard reallocate reconnaissance helicopters and robotic surveillance craft to the "border states" to prevent illegal immigration. The governor also requested the deployment of unmanned drones, including possibly the Predator drones used in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, in her letter, Brewer even mentioned those foreign wars as examples of where the drones have been effective.

What's the matter with Arizona? Isn't it a little early in the year for the folks in the desert to be suffering from sunstroke?

I guess this is par for the course. Brewer just signed SB 1070, a disgraceful anti-immigration and pro-racial-profiling law, to give local and state cops throughout the state the chance to suit up and play border patrol agent. Why shouldn't she get the chance to suit up and play general?

After all, like the United States, Arizona is currently involved in two wars. There's the hypocritical war against the very illegal immigrants that the state has spent the past 15 years providing with gainful employment by allowing them to do jobs that Arizonans wouldn't do. And then there's the rhetorical war with the Obama administration, which Arizona wants to portray as negligent in stopping illegal immigration, which forced Arizonans to take matters into their own hands.

The argument that the federal government isn't actively engaged in border enforcement is both dishonest and reckless.

It is dishonest because it's not true. I've visited the U.S.-Mexico border a dozen times in the past 10 years: in Texas, Arizona and California. I've interviewed countless border patrol agents and supervisors. I've also been up in a Border Patrol helicopter flying above the border, which offers a unique perspective on border security.

So I can tell you what the border patrol agents on the ground would tell you: The U.S.-Mexico border has never been more fortified. There are now more than 20,000 border patrol agents on the federal payroll. That's more agents than any other federal enforcement agency, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Those agents apprehend people and deport them at a feverish clip. In fact, it was recently announced that the Obama administration deported more people last year than the Bush administration during its final year in office.

It is reckless because -- when this law is hauled before a federal judge, as it will be -- opponents will argue that the measure violates the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution by usurping federal authority to enforce immigration law. And that's the very thing that proponents seem to be admitting in their bravado. In fact, it might not be a bad idea for Arizona officials to pipe down and stop bragging about how they're doing the job of the federal government in terms of immigration enforcement, since that's a no-no under the Constitution.

If the federal government does take border enforcement seriously, critics might ask: Why are there still people trying to enter the United States illegally? Simple. We can dig a moat, deploy an army, build walls or call in an airstrike, but desperate people will always find a way to go around, under or over any impediment in their path to a better life.

This isn't to condone illegal immigration. My views -- in support of deportations, workplace raids, giving more resources to the Border Patrol etc. -- are well known. I'm just telling you what Border Patrol agents tell me: that it doesn't make any sense to focus all our attention at the border while turning a blind eye to employers in the interior. That's like trying to fill a bucket with teaspoons of water without first plugging the hole at the bottom.

Now Obama has fallen into that same trap. He is reportedly ready to announce that he is sending 1,200 National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border to help control illegal immigration and quell some of the violence. That's a far cry from the 6,000 troops that Arizona Sen. John McCain had requested, and congressional Republicans seem miffed that Obama stole their thunder.

Still, as long as the troops follow the protocol laid out in 2006 when George W. Bush launched Operation Jumpstart -- that they're unarmed and act only in a support capacity to the Border Patrol by fixing vehicles, monitoring surveillance equipment, repairing fences -- I think sending the National Guard is a fine idea. It's just not the magic bullet that the most enthusiastic proponents of the idea would have us believe.

There's only one of those. It involves fining, arresting and prosecuting the employers of illegal immigrants, including people who are, this election year, streaming into fundraisers for McCain, Brewer and other tough-talking Republicans vowing to solve a problem that many of their backers helped create.