Mike McClellan’s commentary on immigration in Wednesday’s East Valley Tribune (“Immigration solution remains far from reality”) presupposes that Arizona citizens expect SB 1070 to be a total solution to our immigration problem. He then goes on to “educate” us on why it will not have that effect. I believe that most Arizona citizens are aware that SB 1070 is not intended to be a total solution to the immigration problem, but that it is an important part of the solution.
Arguing that SB 1070 is not going to solve problems that it is not intended to solve, is, in my opinion, a roundabout way of attacking the true purpose of SB 1070. McCellan shows his true colors with his statement “That solution, no matter how objectionable to some, will inevitably include some path to legal residency...”.
McClellan must and does admit that SB 1070 has already had the effect of contributing to the exidus of illegals, which is what its true purpose always has been. That is reality. That is the benefit to the State. SB 1070 will not seal off our borders, nor solve the problem of children born here of parents who are illegals. But then, Mr. McCellan, that never was its intended purpose.
Robert Hicks
Gilbert
Masterrogue666 posted at 9:45 pm on Mon, May 7, 2012.
I've thought of the perfect avatar name for "Dale".
He should use "Megalomaniac". Everyone knows they are one and the same.
[beam]
Rational Human posted at 8:47 pm on Fri, May 4, 2012.
As Justice Sotomayor would say to you Dale, “You can see it’s not selling very well,” she said. “Why don’t you try to come up with something else?”
Rational Human posted at 8:40 pm on Fri, May 4, 2012.
Dale is a liar who ignorantly blurts that states somehow need federal approval to help enforce federal law. Well guess what folks, we don't give a squiggly hoot about federal law because we enacted our own state laws regarding immigration. We do have the right to enforce state law right Dale? You know like bank robbery laws that fairly mimic federal bank robbery laws. Oh, so states shouldn't be allowed to enforce that law? Or is it your contention that the feds have given states the right to make and enforce bank robbery laws? Again so Dale the law professor can understand, SB1070 is state law that mimics federal law. We are allowed to enforce immigration laws. We aren't allowed to create immigration policy. Only the feds can do that. Sheriff Joe lost permission and the beat goes on cause we have our own laws. We do not need them to enforce our own laws. We had their cooperation before we actually started to become effective partners so they had to stop cooperating with Joe. lol You starting to comprehend amigo? You lost, we win. End of story dude.
samkat posted at 6:44 pm on Fri, May 4, 2012.
Its nice to know we have a constitutional law expert among our midst. I think they even confer degrees on the subject. I seem to recall that Obama is a constitutional lawyer. It saves us the hassle of having to consult a big time lawyer who is not a neo-liberal. :-)
Dale Whiting posted at 9:22 am on Fri, May 4, 2012.
P.S. Willie,
Kidnapping only becomes federal when state lines are crossed! It took the Commerce Clause to make it permissible for the feds to have a say. If you watch TV closely, you will notice that those experts from the FBI unit at Quantico have to get invided in by the locals to help profile the unitentified suspect [the unsub]. The locals do the arresting, don't they!
Dale Whiting posted at 9:15 am on Fri, May 4, 2012.
When local police act to enforce federal law, they do so primarily where the federal law grants them authority to do so. Where there is no statutory grant of authority, there can be a federal agency grant, usually with specific conditions, conditions like those granted to Arpaio by ICE but ignored. That is why Sheriff Joe lost permission.
You kids on this site really do need that introductory course on Consitutional Law. Your profound ignorance is showing.
Rational Human posted at 5:06 pm on Thu, May 3, 2012.
Even Obummer's Hispanic said they weren't buying into your preemption BS Dale. No wait. You must have taken a constitutional class by the eminent phony professor Obummer. lol
Leon Ceniceros posted at 5:02 pm on Thu, May 3, 2012.
Illegal Aliens are only moving out of the States that have "SB1070-Like Laws". They are flooding into Utah, New Mexico, California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Colorado because their Law Enforcement Entities don't enforce the US Code Law on Illegal Entry into the United States.
The State of Utah's "Utah Compact" and the State of New Mexico even give Illegal Aliens ............"DRIVER'S LICENSES" ........FOR GAWD'S SAKES....OFFICIAL STATE OF UTAH AND STATE OF NEW MEXICO.....DRIVER'S LICENSES.
The Illegal Aliens then use these ............OFFICIAL STATE OF UTAH AND STATE OF NEW MEXICO DRIVER'S LICENSES..........TO GET UTAH AND NEW MEXICO....STATE AID....WIC....HUD...SECTION-8.....AND EVEN ...FOOD STAMPS.
IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT FOR OUR GREAT STATE........TO ISSUE......ILLEGAL ALIENS..........STATE OF ARIZONA DRIVER'S LICENSES ???
VofReason posted at 12:50 pm on Thu, May 3, 2012.
There he goes, do I want to read more (about another 45 lines) of Dale. No. Anyone else? So tell us the other side Dale, why does the federal Government choose not to enforce it's borders. Choose not to ensure that people are in this country legally? Don't they want to ensure their citizens are safe? In less then 45 lines please so I don't pass.
Accuracy posted at 11:54 am on Thu, May 3, 2012.
Arizona’s SB 1070 may not be the total solution . . . But, New York Democrat Sen. Chuck Schumer and other “Open Border” Senate Democrats are nervously upset and agitated, and they claim Democratic opposition remains strong.
As a promise to alienated Hispanic voters, Sen. Chuck Schumer said that if the U.S. Supreme Court upholds the law, he plans to overturn it through Congress with the Liberal Democrats legislation that will block states from passing their own immigration laws.
Arizona Willie posted at 11:23 am on Thu, May 3, 2012.
The local police arrest counterfeiters ( A Federal Law ) and the Federal Government is happy.
The local police arrest kidnappers ( A Federal Law ) and the Federal Government is happy.
The local police arrest bank robbers ( A Federal Law ) and the Federal Government is happy.
The local police arrest illegal immigrants ( A Federal Law ) and the Federal Government sues!!!
Hmm, I wonder why it is that the Federal Government is very happy to have local police help enforcing all Federal Laws --- EXCEPT ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.
Perhaps our Governor should direct all State and Local police agencies to no longer enforce ANY Federal Laws.
I suspect the Feds would soon change their tune with banks being robbed left and right and rich people being kidnapped and our local police standing by just watching.
After all ... it's a Federal Law so local police can't enforce it. The Feds have even sued to stop the local police from enforcing Federal Law.
Well ---- ONE --- Federal Law anyway.
Dale Whiting posted at 9:41 am on Thu, May 3, 2012.
P.S.
By your writing "false preemption B.S." I know that I have wasted my time trying to explain Constitutional law to you. 200 years of court rulings mean absolutely nothing to you. That is why I call you irrational and inhumane. But there are others who might be saved from believing in your B.S. Bob Hicks in Gilbert might be one.
Dale Whiting posted at 9:37 am on Thu, May 3, 2012.
Irrational inhumanbeing,
If you want a detailed explaination read Judge Bolton's opinion. If you want an overly simplified one, I'll do my best. Just understand that Constitutional Law is a 3 semester hour class and it's really only introductory in nature.
The US Soliciter General did not argue that SB1070 would result in illegal profiling. So we need not go there first. Illegal profiling is more the topic of how a law is enforced that whether and by whom it is enforced. SB1070 takes away from state law enforcement the ability to turn a blind eyd on illgals and most PD's have objected to that. Many times an investigation needs to question those who have done illegal things to get leads to those doing worse things, here the coyotes and the drug and weapons smugglers! And when illegals know that they must be arrested, they run and don't get interviewed.
But the central issue is pre-emption, the constitutional notion that what is within the exclusive subject matter jurisdiction of the feds is no business of the states and vice versa. Immigration law and enforcement of immigration law is exclusively federal jurisdiction.
Currently the feds are prioritizing the impact of illegal aliens, looking first and foremost at those who are doing the real damage. In the alternative, law enforcement can sweep up all illegals, playing not on common sense law enforcement, but on political sentiments. And by your strong support for SB 1070 that strong but irrational political sentiment is most obvious.
Over the last several years, net immigration from Mexico into the US is negative. Long before SB 1070, and probably due mainly to the economy, illegals have been deporting themselves, except for one catagory, those here to commit far more serious crimes that crossing borders without papers.
The Supreme Court ruling on SB 1070 will issue at the end of June before the summer recess. Chances are SB 1070 will be upheld, but not like you might suspect. The ruling will uphold the fact that immigration law and its enforcement are still exclusively a federal matter but yet will permit states to enforce federal immigration law by making arrests and turning those arrested over to the feds for prosecution and disposal. Then the feds can do an expecitious deportation of those it would otherwise not have bothered with deporting them to Old Mexico or perhaps New Mexico, who knows! The ruling will be cast in langauge that attempts to not characterize SB1070 as having stepped over the line of federal preemption law. But know this. Not most, but all credible legal experts view SB 1070 as stepping over that line.
You may recall that when the feds viewed Sheriff Joe as doing profiling to find illegals to turn over to ICE, ICE withdrew the permission extended to Joe to help enforce immigration law. SB 1070 will have the effect of taking away from ICE any need to grant Sheriff Joe permission and will run ruff shod over Federal law enforcment priorities. To me and to the credible legal experts, that is proof of stepping over the line.
Now do you understand how you've stepped in it? By stopping his efforts at immigration enforcement, even Sheriff Joe understands that he needs permission. If he cannot get it from ICE, then he'll take it under SB 1070. If that's not stepping over a line, what is?
The sustaining of SB1070 will dangerously errode federal and state preemption precidents written by the Supreme Court over the last 150 years. States will have a right to enforce federal laws in most all areas. All they need do is pass a law. And the feds will be able to do the same thing to state laws. Currently the crime must extend across a state border where under the Interstate Commerce clause, the feds have authority to step in. Federal Civil Rights law had to draw on the Commerce Clause to get enforcement of anti-discrimination law at the State level. Where Oklahoma has adopted laws to bar Shira Law [a most stupid but pollitically popular thing to do] the feds could override that law [a most unnecessary thing to do].
Do you want the feds to tell AZ how to enforce laws about horse racing, irrigation water rights, traffic laws, state tax laws, etc.? I think not! But SB 1070 opens up the flood gates. It could give the feds authority to tell AZ it cannot have its own state militia. SB1070 creates a very "slippery slope" indeed.
So when the opinion issues, take time to read carefully both the majority and minority opinions as well as any concurring opinions. Mark these words. "It will be very interesting, interesting indeed!" I plan on writing an article on the topic.
Rational Human posted at 7:40 am on Thu, May 3, 2012.
LOL Dale says, "So you see a need to allow states to enforce federal laws." Are you trying to get elected as the the new Tribune clown? I don't see any other reason for the feds objection to Arizona assisting them in the enforcement of any federal law except that they don't want to enforce the federal law that was enacted by our elected legislature. So Dale explain to us how the constitution is being violated by Arizona law? Even the Supreme Court can't agree with your, and there false preemption BS.
Raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans is a political ploy that wont make any discernible difference in our debt. It's like demanding that we throw 2 grains of sand on the beach to save it from erosion from the sea, but don't stop drinking the kool-ade wdgnas. And perhaps you can show us the stats that prove your point that a vast majority of Americans favor Obummer's and his socialist party's political ploy of demanding that wealthy Americans, that already pay the lions share, pay even more taxes.
wdgnas posted at 6:45 am on Thu, May 3, 2012.
rational human: and speaking of the government respecting the wishes of the vast majority of people that responded to the latest evt poll. or is this somehow different?
wdgnas posted at 6:39 am on Thu, May 3, 2012.
rational human: Hopefully we can defeat the Obummer and have a government that will respect the wishes of the vast majority of Americans concerning the estimated millions of illegal aliens.
would you also want the the government to respect the wishes of the vast majority of americans concerning raising taxes on the wealthiest americans? or are you picking and choosing which wishes the government respects?
Dale Whiting posted at 2:15 am on Thu, May 3, 2012.
"A foot in the door" you say. "Sovereignty" is behind SB1070 you say. So you see a need to allow states to enforce federal laws. But what about the US constitution?
You stepped in it, Irrational. Did you know at the time you wrote this that you were stepping in it?
So once again we have a case of a Neoconservative either misintepreting the Constitution or ignoring it altogether when it suits him.[beam]
Rational Human posted at 10:00 pm on Wed, May 2, 2012.
I think if you reread his letter it's pretty obvious what the purpose of SB1070 is and what must follow to solve the problem. I don't think very highly of your intelligence Dale, but I know you are smarter than your comment sounds. SB1070 is a foot in the door to allowing states to enforce their sovereignty, to finally be allowed to enforce federal laws regarding illegal immigration. Much more will follow after the Supreme Court rules. Hopefully we can defeat the Obummer and have a government that will respect the wishes of the vast majority of Americans concerning the estimated millions of illegal aliens. Democrats want these millions to become citizens for the votes they represent. It has absolutely nothing to do with compassion for these poor hard working criminals. When we get a federal government that wants to seal our border and remove those criminals it will be done in short order. SB1070 is just the beginning.
Dale Whiting posted at 9:05 pm on Wed, May 2, 2012.
Ok, Bob, I'll bite.
Just what were SB1070's primary intended purposes and how are those purposes to be achieved? And what more needs to be done about illegal immigration that SB1070 cannot or will not address? Don't get vague on us. Be direct, cause and effect. Careful now. You just might step in it while attempting to answer these simple questions.