Thread: Aliens, Naturalization & Congress’ powers vs. State po

Senator Jeff Sessions assists our progressive domestic enemy crowd!


Senator Jeff Sessions, who we are told is a “conservativeâ€

.


Let us summarize the facts of Arizona‘s situation:

The State of Arizona is being overrun with hundreds of thousands of aliens who have entered the State illegally.

The hundreds of thousands of aliens who have invaded the borders of Arizona have created an unsustainable financial drain upon taxpayer funded services and benefits which have been exclusively created for citizens of Arizona and not created for aliens who have illegally entered the borders of Arizona.

In addition, the hundreds of thousands of aliens who have invaded the borders of Arizona are responsible for countless criminal activities: armed robberies, burglaries, kidnappings, rape, murder and various other criminal activities, all of which is a separate and additional unsustainable burden upon the citizens of Arizona


The State of Arizona, under its internal policing powers adopts a law to help protect the public and promote the State’s general welfare by distinguishing citizens of Arizona from those who have entered the state of Arizona illegally, which in turn then allows their removal from the State as provided for under federal law.

The Obama Administration files suite against the State of Arizona asserting Arizona may not exercise Arizona’s retained policing powers [retained under the Tenth Amendment] alleging to do so is to interfere with the federal government’s exclusive authority over “immigrationâ€

Johnwk, I cannot answer your question. Aside from the fact that the federal government has refused and/or failed to enforce immigration laws on the books, and many states have followed the feds example for far too long, for as long as it was politically tolerated, it would seem that Americans are being hoodwinked into thinking that the feds have the power to dictate to the states powers which are not theirs to possess. With that being said, is there any reason why Arizona should follow the order of the court? Is it not time for the states to press forward and take what is theirs and reject the courts as having overstepped their authority?

Why do we continue to look to the feds for answers that the feds are not authorized to settle? Does not Arizona have the right to protect its citizens from the crimes that are commited by people who have no right to be here in the first place.

This judge should be replaced. This farce of a president should be impeached, and all past politicians which looked the other way should be recorded in the history books as traitors!

Originally Posted by roundabout

This judge should be replaced. This farce of a president should be impeached, and all past politicians which looked the other way should be recorded in the history books as traitors!

roundabout,


I was listening to Rush today and when the Arizona OPINION came down Rush cried “activist judge“. I wish I could agree with him on the activist judge thing, but after reading the ruling I see the statutory language used in SB 1070 is very much part of the problem. For example, The ruling says:

[b][i]“The United States argues principally that the power to regulate immigration is vested exclusively in the federal government, and that the provisions of S.B. 1070 are therefore preempted by federal law.â€

Thanks for your assessment John.

I have wondered about the possibility of officials intentionally writing shoddy law and thereby thwarting the desires of citizens to force the issue of enforcement in an area that seems to be intentionally disregarded by those who are supposed to protect the citizens with laws that will protect said citizens. Sad part of that thought is that I did not arrive at that with a thorough understanding of legal wrangling in the form of writing laws, but by a deep and ever deepening distrust of politicians.

I have also wondered if this was just an attempt to buy time? If so, the idiots in the various political stripes are playing a dangerous game.

The siren song is that Nov. is coming, sure hope that Americans are smart enough to know not to spend much time sunning on the beaches of such deceit.

This decision is not about a liberal activist judge as some have contended. This decision is about a tyrannical act engaged in by a domestic enemy of our written Constitution and the documented intentions under which it was adopted. But there is also some blame to be placed on lawyers who make the court’s tyranny take affect without contention!



On page 5 of the written opinion we find:

II BACKGROUND

A. Overview of Federal Immigration Law

[b][i]Congress has created and refined a complex and detailed statutory framework regulating immigration. The federal immigration scheme is largely enacted through the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INCâ€

Thanks again for ironing things out John.

As for the talking heads, and who has been doing a good job in this area, I will bring up Mike Church. He has been doing a great job at explaing the founders intentions, the debates, and the various speeches given concerning the naturalization of immigrants and the states rights beyond that. As for this AZ 1070 he has been been going off saying about legal standing concerning this case.

Schnitt has gone off and says he agrees with Grahmnesty concerning a constitutional amendment to end the anchor baby debacle, lending credence to the fact that it exists in such a manner in the Constitution.

John, if you get a chance could you comment on legal standing in regards to this case?

BTTT

There seems to be a flurry of articles concerning anchor babies and the 14th Amendment.

Please see and read the first page of this thread.

Additions concerning the intentions of the 14th would also be appreciated.

It is my belief that an additional Amendment is not needed, at least not til the Supreme Court has weighed in on the intent.

Can anybody add anything of relevance to the contrary? Any interpretations from the Supreme Court? New laws?

Contributed information on this particular topic thread is excellent and should be book marked!

IMHO, it should be shared with any and all anti-illegal immigration legislation attorneys preparing legal briefs. Apparently, most cannot muster up convincing enough arguments.