The Feds and Immigration Law

[volinbham]

So the Arizona law is at the SCOTUS and the primary argument from the opponents is that it is Constitutionally clear that immigration law is the province of the Federal government - states have no role.

If that argument is true, why isn't the Fed cracking down on sanctuary cities? How is this not mucking with immigration law without jurisdiction?

Is there a legal difference or is this just political choice by the Feds of when to enforce jurisdiction and when not to?

[n_huffhines]

Kind of on topic, just saw this article:

For first time since Depression, more Mexicans leave U.S. than enter - The Washington Post

[YorkVol]

It is purely political choice, imo.

Seems as though more states should be suing the federal government for lack of enforcement on a bunch of federal laws, especially when the states have to eat the costs in terms of additional funds for social welfare programs.

Also, since when does a state not have sovereignty over their territory? There are any number of border related state laws that are enforced every day (California does inspections for fruit flies, it is illegal to bring booze from Maryland into Pennsylvania etc, etc). If I commit a crime in Pennsylvania and flee to Tennessee, would I have to commit another crime in Tennessee to be arrested? If I commit a federal crime the locals won't wait for the FBI to come and arrest me, they'll do it and sort out the jurisdiction for prosecution later.

[Danl]

Originally Posted by YorkVol

It is purely political choice, imo.

Seems as though more states should be suing the federal government for lack of enforcement on a bunch of federal laws, especially when the states have to eat the costs in terms of additional funds for social welfare programs.

Also, since when does a state not have sovereignty over their territory? There are any number of border related state laws that are enforced every day (California does inspections for fruit flies, it is illegal to bring booze from Maryland into Pennsylvania etc, etc). If I commit a crime in Pennsylvania and flee to Tennessee, would I have to commit another crime in Tennessee to be arrested? If I commit a federal crime the locals won't wait for the FBI to come and arrest me, they'll do it and sort out the jurisdiction for prosecution later.

Just a guess here. It might have to do with international vs. intranational borders.

[BeecherVol]

Originally Posted by volinbham

So the Arizona law is at the SCOTUS and the primary argument from the opponents is that it is Constitutionally clear that immigration law is the province of the Federal government - states have no role.

If that argument is true, why isn't the Fed cracking down on sanctuary cities? How is this not mucking with immigration law without jurisdiction?

Is there a legal difference or is this just political choice by the Feds of when to enforce jurisdiction and when not to?

The Federal government does not want the states handling immigration even if its costing $ or lives to that particular state.

That said, they don't want to handle it either and would rather everybody just forget about it for political reasons.

In and before...this is an issue on both sides of the political spectrum with only a handful that seem to realize the real problem.

[gsvol]

FWIW, Obama just withdrew 900 National Guardsmen from active border patrol activity.

He may be thinking he may need a couple more million illegal votes come November.

[tvolsfan]

So apparently it looks like the court will uphold the law?

[T-TownVol]

Originally Posted by tvolsfan

So apparently it looks like the court will uphold the law?

All indications are yes, they will. Good for them.



One loss for BHO....lets keep it rolling in June!

[tvolsfan]

Originally Posted by T-TownVol

All indications are yes, they will. Good for them.



One loss for BHO....lets keep it rolling in June!

At least obamacare seemed to get a little sympathy from Roberts and Kennedy.

He doesn't look like they'll get that support this time.

[T-TownVol]

Originally Posted by tvolsfan

At least obamacare seemed to get a little sympathy from Roberts and Kennedy.

He doesn't look like they'll get that support this time.

there are parts of Obamacare that make sense, it is just the forced parts that are the issue

[lawgator1]

Originally Posted by T-TownVol

All indications are yes, they will. Good for them.



One loss for BHO....lets keep it rolling in June!

Short-sighted post is short-sighted.

A decision prior to the election and upholding the Arizona law (or even one striking it down but with a publicized dissent) has the potential to really hurt Romney because it will bring the issue to the fore again.

Romney is on record being against Dream Act and for much stricter enforcement of illegal immigration prevention, which will cost him votes in key states, such as Florida.

And if he tries to worm his way out of it then, all he does is create the opportunity for more flip flopping accusations.

This issue is kryptonite for the GOP.

[hog88]

Originally Posted by lawgator1

Short-sighted post is short-sighted.

A decision prior to the election and upholding the Arizona law (or even one striking it down but with a publicized dissent) has the potential to really hurt Romney because it will bring the issue to the fore again.

Romney is on record being against Dream Act and for much stricter enforcement of illegal immigration prevention, which will cost him votes in key states, such as Florida.

And if he tries to worm his way out of it then, all he does is create the opportunity for more flip flopping accusations.

This issue is kryptonite for the GOP.

I disagree, some of the most hard core immigration guys I've met were LEGAL immigrants. The reasoning was they jumped through all of the hoops and waited their turn so why can't everyone else.

[T-TownVol]

Originally Posted by lawgator1

Short-sighted post is short-sighted.

A decision prior to the election and upholding the Arizona law (or even one striking it down but with a publicized dissent) has the potential to really hurt Romney because it will bring the issue to the fore again.

Romney is on record being against Dream Act and for much stricter enforcement of illegal immigration prevention, which will cost him votes in key states, such as Florida.

And if he tries to worm his way out of it then, all he does is create the opportunity for more flip flopping accusations.

This issue is kryptonite for the GOP.

reach.....reply is a reach......stop projecting what you THINK will happen when it is total fabrication

[MG1968]

it's going to be hard to take the Latino pressure groups seriously after their deafening silence these last few weeks during which a fellow Latino was receiving death threats from other minority groups

[lawgator1]

Originally Posted by hog88

I disagree, some of the most hard core immigration guys I've met were LEGAL immigrants. The reasoning was they jumped through all of the hoops and waited their turn so why can't everyone else.

Originally Posted by T-TownVol

reach.....reply is a reach......stop projecting what you THINK will happen when it is total fabrication

LOL @ you two, refusing to see what is right in front of you.

In a 2010 NBC poll, only 31 percent of Hispanics support the Arizona law. In fact, 58 percent say they strongly oppose the law.

You accuse me of projecting what I think the Hispanic population thinks? Fools. The numbers show what the Hispanic population thinks, and why -- the overwhelming reason is that they believe such laws demonstrate hostility to the Hispanic population.

Obama is going to shove that down Romney's throat, at every turn. And we all know how sincere Romney appears when he backpedals. Again.