Scalia hits Obama on immigration policy

Jun 25, 2012

Scalia hits Obama on immigration policy

By David Jackson, USA TODAY Updated 36m ago

By Manuel Balce Ceneta, APIn dissenting from today's ruling striking down most of the Arizona immigration law, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia took a swipe at President Obama's new immigration policy.

Scalia noted that "after this case was argued and while it was under consideration" -- on June 15 to be precise -- the Obama administration announced it would stop deporting the children of illegal immigrants, provided they meet certain criteria.

"There has come to pass, and is with us today, the specter that Arizona and the states that support it predicted," Scalia wrote: "A federal government that does not want to enforce the immigration laws as written, and leaves the states' borders unprotected against immigrants whom those laws would exclude."

Commenting on his order earlier this week, Obama said he acted because Congress has not moved on efforts at comprehensive immigration legislation, including a proposal affecting the children of illegal immigrants.

In a statement on today's court decision, Obama said that "we will continue to enforce our immigration laws by focusing on our most important priorities like border security and criminals who endanger our communities, and not, for example, students who earn their education.

"Which is why," he added, "the Department of Homeland Security announced earlier this month that it will lift the shadow of deportation from young people who were brought to the United States as children through no fault of their own."

Scalia spotlighted the president's earlier statement in his dissent:

The President said at a news conference that the new program is "the right thing to do" in light of Congress's failure to pass the Administration's proposed revision of the Immigration Act. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so.

But to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of the Immigration Act that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind.

Scalia hits Obama on immigration policy

In Arizona dissent, Scalia blasts Obama's deportation stay, immigration policies


By Liz Goodwin
June 25, 2012
ABC News

In a stinging, 22-page dissent to Monday's decision striking down most of Arizona's tough anti-illegal immigration law, Justice Antonin Scalia criticized President Obama's announcement earlier this month that he would stay the deportation of young illegal immigrants and suggested that the federal government does not want to enforce its immigration laws.

"The president said at a news conference that the new program is 'the right thing to do' in light of Congress's failure to pass the administra*tion's proposed revision of the Immigration Act," Scalia, a Reagan appointee, wrote in his dissent. "Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforc*ing applications of the Immigration Act that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind."

Scalia went on to write:

Arizona bears the brunt of the country's illegal immigration problem. Its citizens feel themselves under siege by large numbers of illegal immigrants who invade their property, strain their social services, and even place their lives in jeopardy. Federal officials have been unable to remedy the problem,and indeed have recently shown that they are unwilling to do so. Thousands of Arizona's estimated 400,000 illegal immigrants—including not just children but men and women under 30—are now assured immunity from en*forcement, and will be able to compete openly with Ari*zona citizens for employment.

Scalia also repeatedly referenced Obama's policy of prosecutorial discretion, which directs ICE agents to prioritize deporting the illegal immigrants who are frequent border crossers, have committed crimes, or recently entered the country illegally. The Obama administration has deported a record number of illegal immigrants, but its prosecutorial discretion policy still draws the ire of illegal immigration hawks.

Scalia directly referred to Obama's immigration enforcement policy as "lax" at one point.

"Must Arizona's ability to protect its borders yield to the reality that Congress has provided inadequate funding for federal enforcement—or, even worse, to the executive's unwise targeting of that funding?" Scalia asked. Later, he added: "What I do fear—and what Arizona and the States that support it fear—is that 'federal policies' of nonen*forcement will leave the states helpless before those evil effects of illegal immigration."

The federal government "does not want to enforce the immigration laws as written, and leaves the states' borders unprotected against immigrants whom those laws would exclude," Scalia alleged.

Arizona's entire immigration law should be upheld, Scalia wrote, because it is "entitled" to make its own immigration policy. At one point, he cites the fact that Southern states could exclude free blacks from their borders to support the idea that states should be able to set their own immigration policies.

The majority of the justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, ruled that most of Arizona's law is unconstitutional, save for the provision that allows police officers to ask about immigration status during stops.

In Arizona dissent, Scalia blasts Obama's deportation stay, immigration policies - ABC News

Quote:

---

The majority of the justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, ruled that most of Arizona's law is unconstitutional, save for the provision that allows police officers to ask about immigration status during stops.

---

So much for the Supreme Court.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Newmexican

So much for the Supreme Court.

---

Yeah, and I'm sure it will get much worse should Obama be reelected. It has been said that there will be two new appointments over the next four years. Can you imagine another Sotomayor and Elena Kagan being appointed. If it comes to pass, we'll be in a world of trouble.

ALIPAC Amnesty Defense Plans in Motion: Rally To Us!

Swear Upon the Altar of God Eternal Hostility against Every Form of Tyranny over the Mind of Man
posted on June 26, 2012 by Gary DeMar


Sworn on the altar of God_croppedAfter the Supreme Court ruling on immigration, which upheld a key provision in the law, the Obama administration has declared war on Arizona. Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio told FOX News:

“I’m not stopping anything. I’m going to continue to enforce those state laws regardless of what the federal government is trying to put pressure on me to satisfy all these activists. . . . So, I’m not going to bend to the federal government, especially when we still have state laws to enforce.”

All of this reminds of the 1950 film Born Yesterday. Harry Brock (Broderick Crawford) is a tyrant who wheels and deals in political payoffs. He uses his power and money to buy his way through Washington. He’s loud, rich, and abusive. “Do what I’m tellin’ ya!” he constantly shouts at Billie Dawn (Judy Holliday).

Billie takes Harry’s abuse, and Harry preys on her dumb-blonde ignorance. But even Harry can’t stomach her ignorance, so he hires Paul (William Holden), a reporter, to tutor Billie. He has his work cut out for him, but in time, he gets results.

Paul gives her a crash course in the history of the American Revolution. He takes her to the Jefferson Memorial to inspire her to rebel against her personal tyrant. Here are the words from Thomas Jefferson that they read at the Jefferson Memorial:

“I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”

If it was good enough for Jefferson, it should be good enough for Gov. Jan Brewer, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, and the rest of us.

Justice Scalia gets to the heart of the sovereignty issue in his dissent of Arizona v. United States.

“Today’s opinion . . . deprives states of what most would consider the defining characteristic of sovereignty: the power to exclude from the sovereign’s territory people who have no right to be there. Neither the Constitution itself nor even any law passed by Congress supports this result.”

“As a sovereign, Arizona has the inherent power to exclude persons from its territory, subject only to those limitations expressed in the Constitution or constitutionally imposed by Congress. That power to exclude has long been recognized as inherent in sovereignty.”

“Arizona is entitled to have its own immigration policy — including a more rigorous enforcement policy — so long as that does not conflict with federal law. The Court says, as though the point is utterly dispositive, that it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States. It is not a federal crime, to be sure. But there is no reason Arizona cannot make it a state crime for … any illegal alien … to remain present in Arizona.”

“Of course there is no reason why the federal executive’s need to allocate its scarce resources to illegal immigration should disable Arizona from devoting its resources to illegal immigration in Arizona that in its view the federal executive has given short shrift.”


Read more: Swear Upon the Altar of God Eternal Hostility against Every Form of Tyranny over the Mind of Man - Godfather Politics


So he is saying Arizona can make it a state law and enforce it as they want as long as Arizona pays for it themselves. How does that leave Arizona when the Federal Government mandates law they want and doesn't pay for them???? It seems as though they are leaving Arizona betwixt and between!!!!

King Obama Seeks Revenge as Unanimous Court Upholds Part of Immigration Law


Amid all the pronouncements of liberal victory against Arizona’s immigration law since the Supreme Court announced yesterday that it struck down three of four provisions of SB 1070, there’s an important point that some in the mainstream media are overlooking.

Obama lost. Big time.

The court, in 5-3 votes with Elena Kagan recusing herself, struck down three provisions having to do with state criminal penalties for immigration violations.

The fourth provision gives police the right to stop and demand to know the immigration status of people they reasonably suspect are in the country illegally.

It’s the fourth provision at the heart of the law that really had the administration worried, and that’s the provision that the court upheld unanimously.

Historically, a unanimous Supreme Court decision on anything seals the deal. Challengers need not bother. Adios. Hasta la vista, baby.

But the justices didn’t realize they were dealing with King Obama. Instead of accepting the decision of the court with good grace and committing himself to upholding the ruling as is the president’s duty, Obama immediately set about finding ways to get around it.

First came the promise that Attorney General Eric “Blind Eye” Holder was going to watch Arizona very closely for any signs of “racial profiling.” I give it two weeks before he sues Arizona again.

Then, just to hammer home the point that His Majesty was not pleased, almost immediately following the court’s decision came the announcement that Homeland Security was suspending existing agreements with Arizona law enforcement regarding immigration, meaning they would ignore most immigration calls from Arizona.

The part of SB 1070 that was upheld requires police to inform the feds if they catch someone in the country illegally, and Homeland Security will be allowed to determine whether they prosecute, deport or follow up on the case in any way.

I predict a lot of federal immigration agents based in Arizona will spend their workdays at the track or playing online video games.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer hailed the court’s decision to uphold the most important element of SB 1070 and indicated she is keenly aware that the Obama Administration and legal immigration opponents like La Raza, the ACLU and other leftists will be looking for the flimsiest excuses to block enforcement of the law.

Nonetheless, the state is going forward with its mandate. “I am confident our officers are prepared to carry out this law responsibly and lawfully. Nothing less is acceptable,” Brewer said.

The administration also was not spared criticism over its handling of immigration laws and Obama’s recent unilateral granting of amnesty by executive order. In a scathing dissenting opinion on the decision to overturn the state penalties, Justice Antonin Scalia said, “To say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforc*ing applications of the Immigration Act that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind.”

He added:

Arizona bears the brunt of the country’s illegal immigration problem. Its citizens feel themselves under siege by large numbers of illegal immigrants who invade their property, strain their social services, and even place their lives in jeopardy. Federal officials have been unable to remedy the problem,and indeed have recently shown that they are unwilling to do so. Thousands of Arizona’s estimated 400,000 illegal immigrants—including not just children but men and women under 30—are now assured immunity from en*forcement, and will be able to compete openly with Ari*zona citizens for employment.

As predicted when Obama passed amnesty for young illegal aliens, because Congress has let that action stand unchallenged there is now no court decision or law that Obama does not feel he is above.

It’s already known that the administration has been making its post-Obamacare plans. If the court overturns the health care act in whole or part, expect King Obama to step around the court’s authority without a moment’s notice.

Read more: King Obama Seeks Revenge as Unanimous Court Upholds Part of Immigration Law - Godfather Politics

Supreme Court On Immigration Says Arizona Not Allowed To Do What Feds Refuse To Do
posted on June 26, 2012 by da Tagliare
20 Comments
44

Arizona-Immigration-Law-BrewerYesterday, the US Supreme Court handed down their decision on Arizona’s controversial immigration law SB1070 and both sides are claiming victory.

One of the provisions that the court upheld was the highly controversial right of law enforcement officers to ask people about their legal status (citizen, green card, illegal) during any legitimate traffic stops or arrests.

South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson, hailed this part of the court’s decision as a victory for his state as well, saying,

“Today’s ruling from the United States Supreme Court in the Arizona immigration case contains a major victory for law enforcement in South Carolina.”

“The most important element of South Carolina’s [immigration] law, the ability of law enforcement to verify a suspected illegal alien’s status upon an ‘authorized lawful detention,’ was found to be Constitutional on its face.”

However, SCOTUS did strike down a significant part of SB 1070 because they intruded into federal jurisdiction where they had no right to tread. In the court’s decision, Judge Anthony Kennedy wrote,

“Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration … but the state may not pursue policies that undermine federal law,”

However, Justice Kennedy did say that the mandatory check of immigration status by law enforcement officers was not an intrusion into the federal immigration laws. Arizona Governor Jan Brewer still saw the decision as a victory, saying,

“Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is a victory for the rule of law. It is also a victory for the 10th Amendment and all Americans who believe in the inherent right and responsibility of states to defend their citizens. After more than two years of legal challenges, the heart of SB 1070 can now be implemented in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.”

“While we are grateful for this legal victory, today is an opportunity to reflect on our journey and focus upon the true task ahead: the implementation and enforcement of this law in an even-handed manner that lives up to our highest ideals as American citizens. I know the State of Arizona and its law enforcement officers are up to the task. The case for SB 1070 has always been about our support for the rule of law. That means every law, including those against both illegal immigration and racial profiling. Law enforcement will be held accountable should this statute be misused in a fashion that violates an individual’s civil rights.”

In a co-authored statement released on behalf of Arizona Senators John McCain and Jon Kyle, it read,

“While we still want to fully review the Supreme Court’s decision, today’s ruling appears to validate a key component of Arizona’s immigration law, SB 1070. The Arizona law was born out of the state’s frustration with the burdens that illegal immigration and continued drug smuggling impose on its schools, hospitals, criminal justice system and fragile desert environment, and an administration that chooses to set enforcement policies based on a political agenda, not the laws as written by Congress. We will continue our efforts on behalf of the citizens of Arizona to secure our southern border. We believe Arizonans are better served when state and federal officials work as partners to protect our citizens rather than as litigants in a courtroom.”

While I’m glad to see that Arizona law enforcement officers will be mandated to prove when someone is a legal US citizen, here on a green card or is in need of being detained and deported for being here illegally. On flip side, it galls me to see the high court strike down three key provisions because it intrudes into the legal domain reserved by the federal government, especially when the Obama and Holder have stated publicly that they do not intend to enforce all of the federal immigration laws.

I also wonder how many times the Hispanics in Arizona will scream racial profiling when they are stopped and questioned about their status. Even though police will be following the mandate of the law upheld by the Supreme Court, I can still see Obama and Holder using it for more ammunition against Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his department.

After all, according to the statistics reported by Newsmax, about 360,000 of the Arizona’s 2 million Hispanics are illegals. Having lived in Arizona for over 35 years, I believe the 360,000 figure is low, but even if it is, that’s 18% or nearly 1 of every 5 Latino is an illegal. Let me put it another way, if you knew that 1 of every 5 people that drove a white van was a guilty of committing a federal crime, wouldn’t you be curious and asking questions to find out who?

What everyone seems to forget that being in the United States illegally is a federal crime and just like any other federal crime, the person needs to be arrested and held accountable for breaking the law. I’ve had people tell me that it’s different with immigration, but is it? What if you owned a small grocery store and your livelihood depended on people being law abiding citizens who paid for their purchases. But what if 18% of those who came into your store took merchandise without paying for it? You wouldn’t be happy nor would you be in business very long. That’s exactly what’s happening with illegal aliens. They are coming into our country illegally, stealing our jobs and all of the free benefits the government gives them that you and I are paying for. There is no difference between the two and they should all be treated equally under the law.

Read more: Supreme Court On Immigration Says Arizona Not Allowed To Do What Feds Refuse To Do - Godfather Politics

SCOTUS on illegal immigration

June 26, 2012 by ppjg

Marti Oakley Copyright 2012- All Rights Reserved

__________________________________________________ ____________________

On June 25th, 2012, the Supreme Court issued its final ruling on SB 1070, the law passed by Arizona to deal with illegal immigration that has been not only allowed by the federal government, but also encouraged. The court struck down three of the primary points of the legislation, yet left one standing: Police can inquire about immigration status if an individual is being investigated for a criminal act, while they have him/her in custody.

SCOTUS went on to rule that the individual in question cannot be held longer than usual while that investigation occurs, but issued no guidelines on how long [usual] is, or could be. This blatant omission of course is laying the groundwork for subsequent lawsuits brought by illegal immigrants in the future who will claim abuse.

It is alleged that the private prison industry which is flourishing in states like Arizona, actually wrote the legislation in anticipation of greater numbers of prisoners from which greater profits could be made. This is more than likely, true. The private corporate prison is a fast growing business in the US as these corporations engage in human trafficking for profit. I cannot think of any other way to efficiently describe what the business is of these prisons, otherwise.

SCOTUS’ main contention was that the States cannot overstep the Federal government to deal with illegal immigration. That is the job of the federale’s. Only they aren’t doing their job and have not for more than two decades as the US has been steadily colonized by illegal immigrants who have found protection and privilege provided by the same agencies charged with defending our borders from just such an influx of illegal residents.

From the newly and constantly revised US Code & Title 8, regarding defense of our inland and coastal borders and just whom is charged with defending that border, we find this revision in the code:

(10)In the event the Attorney General determines that an actual or imminent mass influx of aliens arriving off the coast of the United States, or near a land border, presents urgent circumstances requiring an immediate Federal response, the Attorney General may authorize any State or local law enforcement officer, with the consent of the head of the department, agency, or establishment under whose jurisdiction the individual is serving, to perform or exercise any of the powers, privileges, or duties conferred or imposed by this chapter or regulations issued thereunder upon officers or employees of the Service.

I am wondering how this code which includes authorization by the AG of any local law enforcement officer will conflict with the SCOTUS ruling which clearly prohibits the states agents from engaging in enforcement of illegal immigration. Didn’t SCOTUS just say it was unlawful for them to do so?

Previously the code had been revised to include the Homeland Security secretary, specifically, but it appears that agency is taking a back seat to the AG.

While SCOTUS was quick to point out that the states have no authority to enforce federal immigration laws, they conveniently never sited the Fed for failing to enforce those laws themselves. Specifically never mentioned, was the Attorney General (Eric Holder) who was up to his traitorous eyeballs in Fast & Furious, the gun running scheme wherein he coordinated the efforts to move thousands of guns of all kinds into Mexico to arm drug cartels for the most part, against not only the border patrol, but against US citizens living along that border and the Mexican military.
Why would the US government do such a thing?

I am of the opinion that the effect of Fast & Furious, had it never been exposed, would have been used to support the UN Small Arms Treaty intended to disarm the citizens of the US., using the claim that [we] the US public had caused the increase in gun violence on the border by selling, trading or otherwise supplying the cartels and criminals with guns. The only way to stop the violence? The UN Small Arms Treaty, ending or severely restricting gun rights and the 2nd Amendment. I believe this is malfeasance: the use of office to cause threat or harm to the people (that would be us) you are charged with protecting and defending.
What does it all mean?

In my opinion, this whole lawsuit against Arizona was a setup deal from start to finish. SB 1070 was constructed and passed with full knowledge and in anticipation of a federal lawsuit in the Supreme Court in order to set a desired precedent to be used in the future to preclude states from actively defending themselves against illegal immigration. This gets everyone off the hook both state and federal, while never addressing the underlying cause of the issue: illegal immigration.

Had Arizona actually been serious about defending itself from illegal immigration, they would not have even contemplated the contents of SB 1070, as other far more valuable and relevant options were available. Instead of passing what was known to be a law that was dead on arrival, they would have filed suit against the Attorney General for failure to perform his duties as prescribed under US Code & Title 8 and a subsequent suit against ICE for the same failures. But none of this was ever done. It was never even considered.

But this whole issue, whether in SCOTUS or in the state of Arizona was never about anything other than giving the supreme court the opportunity to issue a ruling preventing the states from self defending against illegal immigration.

While Lame Street Media spent the evening chanting the phrase “our immigration system is broken”, not one of them mentioned that the only part that is broken is enforcement. We have so many laws on the books now and we know who is charged with enforcing those laws and we know who isn’t doing their job and who is actively working against the people of the US.

How about a new law or a lawsuit dealing with those things?

__________________________________________________ ________________

SB1070 - 492R - House Bill Summary

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...11-182b5e1.pdf

azcentral.com blogs - E.J. Montini's Columns & Blog - EJMontini - NPR ties prison industry to SB 1070

Prison Economics Help Drive Ariz. Immigration Law : NPR

USC Title 8

8 USC § 1103 - Powers and duties of the Secretary, the Under Secretary, and the Attorney General | LII / Legal Information Institute

SCOTUS on illegal immigration « The PPJ Gazette

Action Alert

Come on folks let make those calls today!
http://cdn7.fotosearch.com/bthumb/CS...4/k7341313.jpg

http://www.alipac.us/f8/help-us-hit-...0/#post1289817