• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

King Obama seeks revenge

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Faster horses

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
29,278
Reaction score
478
Location
NE WY at the foot of the Big Horn mountains
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 enforc­ing 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 en­forcement, and will be able to compete openly with Ari­zona 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: http://godfatherpolitics.com/5857/unanimous-court-upholds-part-immigration-law-king-obama-seeks-revenge/#ixzz1yv7x6TQJ
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
All this ruling does is put things back to the way they have been for years and years....

Local LE can question and detain suspected illegals like they have for years- but have to notify and turn these detainees over to Federal Immigration authorities-- and then its up to Federal immigration authorities to do whatever they want to with the illegals--- and that individual states can't make or enforce their own immigration laws and penalties that are different from US law....
They ruled as I have long believed- that the Federal government Constitutionally has all the power to make and enforce ALL immigration law- and Federal law takes precedence ....


The justices makes it clear that this case is about the power of the federal government to set immigration policy and to pre-empt, to a large degree, state policies that can infringe on that federal power. An expert on immigration law, Micahel A. Olivas, explained: "We can't have 50 different immigration policies, 50 different foreign policies."

And it appears they have broadened the belief that being an illegal immigrant is not a criminal act:

The court notes that, "As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States," and so an arrest "based on nothing more than possible removability" conflicts with a federal system that sets rules and procedures for removal.
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2008
Messages
4,365
Reaction score
0
Location
Heart of Texas
Even if we have only ONE immigration law unless until it is enforced it is worthless...The King has basically said "you arrest them...WE will turn them loose".
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
TexasBred said:
Even if we have only ONE immigration law unless until it is enforced it is worthless...The King has basically said "you arrest them...WE will turn them loose".

That has been the Kings' policy for over 50 years.. And the court used the the passage of the Reagan amnesty law that made it a crime to hire illegals- that has never been enforced- as what they believed the latest direction Congress wanted to take- and used that in deciding there should be no legal violations allowed then against the employees...
 

okfarmer

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
0
Location
Oklahoma
It appears a policy has been decided upon and so it should be followed.

Since it is the federal government's policy to decide deportation, and since the feds have made a decision to not answer the phone or allow access to the federal data base, I think all states should bus all illegals to DC on a weekly/monthly basis and let the federal government decide who they will deport. I imagine this policy would be far less expensive for the states.

Let DC raise their local taxes enough to house, school, feed, and medicate the millions of illegals loose in their streets and then investigate, jail, and prosecute all crime associated with the trash that shouldn't be here.

I really think this could be a win/win.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
okfarmer said:
It appears a policy has been decided upon and so it should be followed.

Since it is the federal government's policy to decide deportation, and since the feds have made a decision to not answer the phone or allow access to the federal data base, I think all states should bus all illegals to DC on a weekly/monthly basis and let the federal government decide who they will deport. I imagine this policy would be far less expensive for the states.

Let DC raise their local taxes enough to house, school, feed, and medicate the millions of illegals loose in their streets and then investigate, jail, and prosecute all crime associated with the trash that shouldn't be here.

I really think this could be a win/win.

Great idea!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
okfarmer said:
It appears a policy has been decided upon and so it should be followed.

Since it is the federal government's policy to decide deportation, and since the feds have made a decision to not answer the phone or allow access to the federal data base, I think all states should bus all illegals to DC on a weekly/monthly basis and let the federal government decide who they will deport. I imagine this policy would be far less expensive for the states.

Let DC raise their local taxes enough to house, school, feed, and medicate the millions of illegals loose in their streets and then investigate, jail, and prosecute all crime associated with the trash that shouldn't be here.

I really think this could be a win/win.

Great idea!

Yep-- and add in a few cratefuls of the reintroduced wolves- and several bullhauler loads of buffalo the greenies want to introduce to the wild and give the DC folks a true look at the country...
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Oldtimer said:
They ruled as I have long believed- that the Federal government Constitutionally has all the power to make and enforce ALL immigration law- and Federal law takes precedence ....

So when are the Feds. going to shut down Santuary cities and put an end to in state tuition?

Those too, would be unconstitutional, correct?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
Oldtimer said:
They ruled as I have long believed- that the Federal government Constitutionally has all the power to make and enforce ALL immigration law- and Federal law takes precedence ....

So when are the Feds. going to shut down Santuary cities and put an end to in state tuition?

Those too, would be unconstitutional, correct?

Actually in the SCOTUS ruling I think it said local law enforcement "may" check for immigration status and may detain illegals- but did not say they had to... I know of no law that requires local L.E. to enforce federal laws..In fact in most cases the federal government discourages such actions...
As far as if the State wanted to give cheaper state tuition rates to Martians- that would be a state issue--- and not involve the federal government....

From the moment our forefathers founded this country-- issues involving foreign nations, foreign trade, immigration, citizenship, have been under federal jurisdiction-- and have no history/precedence going back to the states...
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Messages
1,990
Reaction score
0
Location
eastern Montana
Oldtimer said:
All this ruling does is put things back to the way they have been for years and years....

Local LE can question and detain suspected illegals like they have for years- but have to notify and turn these detainees over to Federal Immigration authorities-- and then its up to Federal immigration authorities to do whatever they want to with the illegals--- and that individual states can't make or enforce their own immigration laws and penalties that are different from US law....
They ruled as I have long believed- that the Federal government Constitutionally has all the power to make and enforce ALL immigration law- and Federal law takes precedence ....


The justices makes it clear that this case is about the power of the federal government to set immigration policy and to pre-empt, to a large degree, state policies that can infringe on that federal power. An expert on immigration law, Micahel A. Olivas, explained: "We can't have 50 different immigration policies, 50 different foreign policies."

And it appears they have broadened the belief that being an illegal immigrant is not a criminal act:

The court notes that, "As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States," and so an arrest "based on nothing more than possible removability" conflicts with a federal system that sets rules and procedures for removal.

Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution


"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; :shock:
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."[1] The Equal Protection Clause can be seen as an attempt to secure the promise of the United States' professed commitment to the proposition that "all men are created equal"[2] by empowering the judiciary to enforce that principle against the states.[3] The Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause applies only to state governments, but the requirement of equal protection has been read to apply to the federal government as a component of Fifth Amendment due process.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
It would be well within an American citizen's rights to sue sanctuary cities.


Lawsuits could also be filed to force the Federal governmnet to enforce the immigration laws on the books.
 

Latest posts

Top