The Department of Justice on Tuesday claiming that the federal government has "preeminent authority" on immigration enforcement filed a lawsuit challenging the state's immigration policy claiming that the "invalid" law interferes with federal immigration responsibilities.
"Arizonans are understandably frustrated with illegal immigration, and the federal government has a responsibility to comprehensively address those concerns," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a written statement. "But diverting federal resources away from dangerous aliens such as terrorism suspects and aliens with criminal records will impact the entire country's safety. Setting immigration policy and enforcing immigration laws is a national responsibility. Seeking to address the issue through a patchwork of state laws will only create more problems than it solves."
... The United States Constitution forbids Arizona from supplanting the federal government's immigration regime with its own state-specific immigration policy," the suit says. "A policy that, in purpose and effect, interferes with the numerous interests the federal government must balance."
Already the high court is weighing a separate Arizona law establishing penalties for employers that don't check the immigration status of employees, which the Justice Department argues impinges on federal immigration authority. {WSJ}
Depending on the outcome, supporters of the measure hope that this will set the new precedent on immigration.
first of all, Attorney General Eric Holder is full of …..
"Diverting federal resources away from dangerous aliens..." that's about the same BS is saying I'm going to leave my front door unlocked and take my chances on who enters my house.
I want to take issue with several things at this article is saying.
1. Diverting federal resources away from "dangerous aliens" and "aliens with records" will impact the entire country safety." Okay, how do you know if they are "dangerous" or have a "record" if you don't check it when you get the opportunity?
2. "Supplanting the federal government's immigration regime with its own state specific immigration policy." Arizona is simply enforcing federal immigration laws.
3. "... a policy that, in purpose and effect, interferes with the numerous interests the federal government's must balance" like what, some type of trade deal with Mexico that we are not aware of? WorldNetDaily exclusive July 6, 2010
Anyway, here is my prediction if Arizona loses the lawsuit.
1. You will a record flood of illegal aliens entering the country because the only system in place to verify their immigration status would be the federal government and they've already proven that they are not interested in doing so.
2. Because of the record number of US citizens that are in favor of such laws such as Arizona's and the firm belief that the federal government has failed to do its constitutional duty in protecting our borders and our country, you're going to see an uprising (hopefully peacefully) of outraged citizens.
Voter outrage is already starting to show in the primaries in the fact that incumbents are not being reelected and tea party supporters are.
Comprehensive immigration reform (whatever the heck that means) that the president is trying to pass, you might as well forget it. NO AMNESTY!
While I am a firm believer that the children who were brought here at a very young age illegally who are now graduating from high school and know no other country than this one, that we should have some leniency towards them simply because we (government) for failing to enforce our laws have created these circumstances in which they now face, should be allowed some path to citizenship. All others, go home and come back to the front door and be welcome.
I would hope that if Arizona does lose this battle, that it along with the other states would in turn sue the federal government and demand since they so adamantly insists that enforcing immigration laws is their job, make them step up to the plate and do it.
While our immigration system is not perfect, it is the one that is currently in place and by circumventing the law itself just because you don't agree with it, does not make what you're doing right, and even more so, it is unfair to the millions of legal immigrants who spent the time money and trouble to become Americans.
5 comments:
Robin,
This is slightly off topic but it's immigration related so I'm going to post here anyway.
I posted the same question a week or so ago in response to another of your posts but got no response so I'm going to try again....
I frequently see statements that imply that the government is not spending enough on preventing illegal immigration and/or doing a poor job in enforcing immigration laws. I never see the numbers behind these statements. I have looked online for such information but so far I have not found much.
Do you ( or anyone else following this blog ) know of a good resource that summarizes current and past spending on border security as well as effectiveness of that spending?
In response to my own question...
I looked around a little more and found the following:
http://www.cis.org/IllegalImmigration-ShiftingTide
Here are a couple of points from this study:
Our best estimate is that the illegal population declined 13.7 percent (1.7 million) from a peak of 12.5 million in the summer of 2007 to 10.8 million in the first quarter of 2009.
Our analysis shows that only the illegal immigrant population has declined. The legal immigrant population does not show the same decline. This is also true for Mexico, the top illegal-immigrant-sending country.
The fact that the legal immigrant population does not show the same decline is an indication that stepped up enforcement has played a role.
There is no way to know if the current trend will continue. Given President Obama’s stated desire to legalize illegal immigrants and his backing away from enforcement efforts, it seems likely that when the economy recovers, the illegal population will resume its growth.
That's just one site but it's the most up to date that I have seen so far.
One dishonest site that I found was http://www.immigrationcounters.com/
This site cites http://www.cis.org (the same site I linked to above) as a source but ignores information from that site past 2007 and then inaccurately presents the data from prior to 2007.
I'm still looking for information about federal past and current spending on illegal immigration enforcement. I'll post more if/when I find anything.
thanks -- that is a good question and where is the money going?
if I find out any information on your question, I'll post it or make it a main topic.
Thank you for this site which I just found. It is very useful and informative.
The topic realy is FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES NOT KNOW ITS OWN CONSTITUTIONAL PURPOSE read on:
....This DOES RELATE....
AS MANY AMERICANS AS POSSIBLE NEED TO KNOW THHE FOLLOWING TOO!
How Mortgages are SUPPOSED to work – this is what SHOULD happen:
You sign a promissory note and the bank gives you the “money”.
You then use that “money” to buy the house.The bank still fractionalizes the promissory note and turns the $100,000 into $900,000.The bank then pays the taxes on the $900,000. That is the understanding that is common to the American public about the real estate purchase process. One minor problem:
WRONG!
Pay attention, Mr. and Mrs. America. You are about to receive a lesson in how the banks con America. PAY CLOSE ATTENTION!How a mortgage REALLY works…When a mortgage is created, your signature on the promissory note creates the funds. They did not exist before then.The lender does not transfer “money” – they simply make bookkeeping entries.The promissory note creates an Accounts Receivable with your name on it and that’s what you pay month after month after month.The promissory note also creates an Accounts Payable with your name on it. But you never see that account. It’s the account that owes you money.Did the lender give you the money when you signed the promissory note? Of course not. They “withheld” it from you.The bank then fractionalizes the promissory note.Example: A promissory note for $100,000 becomes $1,000,000 when the bank fractionalizes it.The bank also sells the promissory note. This repays the Accounts Receivable.The Accounts Payable is not abandoned funds. The bank is suppose to send the borrower an IRS 1099A, Notice of Abandonment, but they don’t.When you make a monthly payment to the bank, you are actually paying the TAX the bank owes the IRS for the money YOU created, PLUS interest.Here is one more bit of information of which you were probably not aware:Foreclosures DO NOT hurt banks in any way. They never risked anything for the creation of the “money” and they never lend any “money”. The “money” is created from your signature.When you sign a mortgage note it comes under UCC Article 3. After securitization, it comes under Article 8. Under US law securitization is illegal because it is fraudulent. Instruments such as loans, credit cards and receivables, are securitized. Enron was involved in securitization and someone brought charges against them. But almost all large corporations are doing it as usual business, including the banking system and the government.
Under the constitution, the government was not given authority to create money. It is a power reserved by the people. Article I, section 10 restricted the states from making gold coins.
SO the corporate government has to rely on the deception of people to create money. So the way money is created is to have people sign an IOU, or promissory note. It is not a debt instrument to the one who created it; it is actually an asset. The creator can pass it on for someone else to use. It is negotiable unless it includes terms and conditions as part of a contract. The property belongs to the creator, and the holder is merely using it and any proceeds that come from it should be restored to the creator.
That is the power we have if we realize we have the authority to do this. The intent is to understand the regulations and to see how they are trying to deceive us to believe we are the debtor and the slave and they are the creditor at all times. This is not legally true.
Post a Comment