Thank you for visiting our site.
Please rate our articles so we know what you are interested in.
Don't forget to visit our shop!
Jul 23
By Doris Meissner and James W. Ziglar
July 22, 2010
Washington Post Opinion
The Obama administration had no choice but to challenge the constitutionality of Arizona’s far-reaching immigration law, whatever the litigation’s eventual outcome.
Our experiences administering the nation’s immigration system, under Republican and Democratic presidents, have convinced us that the challenge to Arizona’s statute is essential to clarify, once again, who in our federal system has responsibility for setting immigration policy.
At first blush, Arizona’s approach may appear to be a rational response to its burdens as the key gateway for illegal immigration at the Southwest border. But since the mid-1800s, the Supreme Court has upheld and expanded the federal government’s primacy in establishing and enforcing immigration policy. When Arizona lawmakers passed S.B. 1070, a significant challenge to this settled constitutional principle, they virtually guaranteed that the federal courts would have to judge the constitutionality of their actions.
Allowing states to set their own immigration policies fails to solve the overall problem of illegal immigration and violates the supremacy clause of the Constitution. The federal government can permit states and localities to act on its behalf in immigration matters, but it must expressly delegate that authority. To that end, Congress passed legislation in 1996 that allows the Department of Homeland Security to make agreements with states and localities — called 287 (g)s for the applicable code section — to assist in immigration enforcement.
DHS has signed more than 70 such agreements, including with the state of Arizona and some of its municipalities. This program, while controversial, appears to be constitutionally sound because it supplements — not supplants — federal authority based on a specific delegation. Arizona’s controversial law, however, appears to go well beyond the intent of 287(g), asserting for itself even greater powers to fashion immigration policy. Its approach invites a patchwork of inconsistent state policies, with results as untenable as having states set their own defense or foreign policies.
Likewise, S.B. 1070 impedes the federal government’s ability to meet law enforcement objectives set by Congress and the president to protect public safety broadly. Such duties require a coordinated federal system that reconciles competing demands with available resources and shifting priorities. In the 1990s, for example, immigration policy focused on strengthening border security. After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, priorities shifted to national security targets. More recently, the administration has directed resources toward helping Mexico eliminate drug cartel violence. Immigration officials must be able to adjust enforcement priorities and practices in light of changing circumstances.
All Americans should demand that their government meet its constitutional responsibilities. But the remedy for failure or policy disagreements is not to ignore the constitutional principles that bind us. Rather, it is to secure accountability for government performance or changes through the ballot box.
Jul 23
This is a sign in Texas, and I love it!
Sorry for the quality, but this has been around and around in the email circuit and copied so much it’s getting worn out.
Jul 23
By Michael W. Savage
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Washington Post
Two federal lawsuits were filed Wednesday against the small town of Fremont, Neb., seeking to overturn a controversial ordinance banning illegal immigrants from renting homes or taking jobs.
Fremont, a rural town with a population of about 25,000, found itself at the front line of the immigration debate when it passed the law after a special election last month.
It was due to go into effect July 29, but a federal lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union seeks an immediate injunction while the legal battle is taking place. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund also filed suit against the city.
About 45 percent of the town’s eligible voters turned out for the special election, approving the ordinance 57 percent to 43 percent. Supporters of the law said it was needed because illegal immigrants were taking away jobs from legal workers and because the federal government has refused to take sufficient action against illegal immigration.
The ACLU’s lawsuit claims the law is unconstitutional because immigration policy is the responsibility of the federal government. It also states that the measure risks committing racial profiling and fanning discrimination.
“There’s a very palpable fear that is being expressed by our clients on the ground already, asking if they should just move out of Fremont,” said Amy Miller, legal director of ACLU Nebraska. “Nebraska doesn’t need a law on its books that, like Arizona’s, is completely out of step with American values of fairness and equality.”
ad_icon
Miller was referring to an Arizona law that gives police the power to question anyone whom they have a “reasonable suspicion” is an illegal immigrant. The U.S. Justice Department has sued to overturn the law.
Fremont’s immigrant population has grown over the past 20 years as foreign workers have been attracted by the meatpacking industry………..read more
Jul 23
White House predicts record $1.47 trillion deficit
Friday, July 23, 2010
Washington Post Alert
The federal budget deficit, which hit a record $1.4 trillion last year, will exceed that figure in 2010 and 2011, according to a White House forecast released Friday.
The $1.47 trillion budget gap predicted for 2010 represents a slight improvement over the administration’s February forecast, but the outlook for 2011 has darkened considerably, primarily due to a drop in expected tax receipts.
For more information, visit washingtonpost.com:
Jul 23
Excerpts of comments taken by the Washington Post from the area residents of Benson………..
One family had been out to a baseball game with their children and came to to flood lights and border patrol all over their property (searching for illegals)…….admin note: that’s not an environment to have kids in.
An illegal who works on a ranch said that if the Ariazona LAw stands up in court he will take his family and move to either California or New Mexico………admin note: guess which states will be implementing the same Arizona law!
for more information go to http://washingtonpost.com
Jul 23
By Jerry Markon
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 23, 2010
Illegals hide out in abandoned train cars on their way to crossing the border into Arizona.
Photo: Joshua Lott, Washington Post.
PHOENIX — A federal judge pushed back Thursday against a contention by the Obama Justice Department that a tough new Arizona immigration law set to take effect next week would cause “irreparable harm” and intrude into federal immigration enforcement.
“Why can’t Arizona be as inhospitable as they wish to people who have entered or remained in the United States?” U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton asked in a pointed exchange with Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler. Her comment came during a rare federal court hearing in the Justice Department’s lawsuit against Arizona and Gov. Jan Brewer (R).
Bolton, a Democratic appointee, also questioned a core part of the Justice Department’s argument that she should declare the law unconstitutional: that it is “preempted” by federal law because immigration enforcement is an exclusive federal prerogative.
“How is there a preemption issue?” the judge asked. “I understand there may be other issues, but you’re arguing preemption. Where is the preemption if everybody who is arrested for some crime has their immigration status checked?”
At issue in Thursday’s hearing, argued in a tan-colored “special proceedings” courtroom” inside the federal courthouse, was whether Bolton would grant a preliminary injunction to stop the law from taking effect while the federal lawsuit proceeds.
As dozens of protesters marched outside, the hearing marked the first round in the Obama administration’s effort to stop the state’s crackdown on illegal immigration. The tension in the courtroom reflected a broader national debate over what has become a political divisive issue: whether police should have the power to question people they suspect are in the United States illegally.
“The regulation of immigration is unquestionably, exclusively, a federal power,” Kneedler told a rapt courtroom. Brewer, whose fierce criticism of the federal lawsuit has helped her popularity at home, watched silently from the front row, drawing a “Good afternoon, Governor” from the judge.
Lawyers for Brewer argued with equal force that the legislation, scheduled to take effect July 29, is a legal expression of a sovereign state’s right to secure its borders against a tide of illegal immigration. The federal government, the lawyers said, has failed to act.
ad_icon
“We keep hearing that we can’t really do anything about these illegal aliens — Arizona should just deal with it,” said John J. Bouma, Arizona’s lead attorney. “Well, the status quo is simply unacceptable.”
The law, which Brewer signed in April, empowers police to question people they have a “reasonable suspicion” are illegal immigrants and to send them to federal authorities for possible deportation. President Obama has strongly condemned the law, and the Justice Department filed suit July 6, setting up an unusual clash between the federal government and a state over who should enforce the nation’s immigration laws.
Bolton did not indicate how she might rule, saying only that she will take the matter “under advisement.” But she did subject Justice Department lawyers to some pointed questions. …………………..read more
Jul 23
Technician: Warning system on BP oil rig had been disabled
Friday, July 23, 2010
Washington Post Alert
KENNER, LA. — Long before an eruption of gas turned the Deepwater Horizon oil rig into a fireball, an alarm system designed to alert the crew and prevent combustible gases from reaching potential sources of ignition had been deliberately disabled, the former chief electronics technician on the rig testified Friday.
Michael Williams said he understood that the rig had been operating with the system in “inhibited” mode for a year to prevent false alarms from disturbing the crew.
Williams said the explanation he got was that the leadership of the rig did not want crew members needlessly awakened in the middle of the night.
For more information, visit washingtonpost.com:
Loading ...
Arizona Fish and Game AZ Fish and Game – Fishing
