US vs. Arizona

[Hallelujah]

Let me see if I understand the federal government's stance in the lawsuit they are filing against Arizona.

The feds are suing a state because the state is enforcing a federal law that the feds themselves aren't / won't enforce. Brilliant move by the federal government.

Same administration that bribes their political party to pass something the citizens don't want.

Am I the only one that thinks the federal government is more out of control than ever before? And they wonder why people are pissed?

[Hallelujah]

Let me see if I understand the federal government's stance in the lawsuit they are filing against Arizona.

The feds are suing a state because the state is enforcing a federal law that the feds themselves aren't / won't enforce. Brilliant move by the federal government.

Same administration that bribes their political party to pass something the citizens don't want.

Am I the only one that thinks the federal government is more out of control than ever before? And they wonder why people are pissed?

Looks like Cafferty sees it the same way. CNN must be going nuts that Cafferty would criticize Obama.

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/20...n-laws/?hpt=T2

[DU Ute]

[YOUTUBE]OBOsbJoM3vA[/YOUTUBE]

[falafel]

This is a basic constitutional issue called preemption. Immigration is an area of law that is reserved for the federal government. The Feds get to decide how and when to regulate, pass laws, and even enforce those laws. A state cannot act in that federal area, even if the federal government itself has chosen not to act at this time (or at all).

In this case, Arizona cannot decide it will do the federal government's job just because the feds have chosen not to act. Its sort of like you noticing that I'm doing a poor job of educating my child and deciding that you'll take it upon yourself to give him a good education. Sorry, pal - that's my right and that right includes me deciding that NO education is right for my kid.

[UtahDan]

I think this is an enormous tactical error on the part of the administration. Does anyone have a hard time imagining Republicans pounding away this fall saying that not only does the administration do nothing to curb illegal entry into our country but they try to stop states who are beset and beleaguered by it from stopping it themselves. This is one of the problems with being surrounded with like-minded people.

Sure law professors, liberally minded associations and Latinos don't like the law, but there are a lot of regular folks who not only disagree but are angry about this. Anger motivates participation. The more the administration does to highlight this, the more it will foment that anger. My understanding is that there are already lawsuits underway that will address these issues. There was not a need for the federal government to get involved. Couple this issue with the real dissatisfaction over health care reform and this fall is setting up as a bigger ass whipping than you normally see for the sitting president's party mid-term.

[falafel]

I think this is an enormous tactical error on the part of the administration. Does anyone have a hard time imagining Republicans pounding away this fall saying that not only does the administration do nothing to curb illegal entry into our country but they try to stop states who are beset and beleaguered by it from stopping it themselves. This is one of the problems with being surrounded with like-minded people.

Sure law professors, liberally minded associations and Latinos don't like the law, but there are a lot of regular folks who not only disagree but are angry about this. Anger motivates participation. The more the administration does to highlight this, the more it will foment that anger. My understanding is that there are already lawsuits underway that will address these issues. There was not a need for the federal government to get involved. Couple this issue with the real dissatisfaction over health care reform and this fall is setting up as a bigger ass whipping than you normally see for the sitting president's party mid-term.

I really am in the dark here, so anyone who knows, please tell me: did the prior administration do anything to enforce this same law?

[UtahDan]

I really am in the dark here, so anyone who knows, please tell me: did the prior administration do anything to enforce this same law?

Good question, I'm not sure they did. But they weren't confronted with AZ trying to address the problem themselves. It is an interesting thought exercise to imagine what they might have done.

It is a strange situation. What if Mexico was taken over in a military coup and Mexico started massing troops on the border of Arizona making clear it wanted it back and when the federal government said "sorry, we're not really going to do anything about that" Arizona then mustered its national guard units. What if then the federal government attempted to stop Arizona from defending itself.

The thing I wonder is whether at some point you get a state that is so frustrated that it essentially decides to ignore the federal government, sort of like what happened in Birmingham? Will Obama send the 101st Airborne Division and federalize the national guard to bring AZ to heel? It seems far fetched, but I think the desperation in some of the border states, particular in the border areas, is heading that direction.

[The_Tick]

I have seen polls that show >70% of America agrees with Arizona in this case.

This is going to cost the Dems dearly.

It isn't going to be until the gang shoot outs cross the boarder and you start having gun battles in the streets with 25 people dead that the current political regime start to do something about it.

I have a member of my bishopric that came to the US legally. Jumped through all the hoops and everything. We talked about this on Sunday. He says...more power Arizona.

[falafel]

Good question, I'm not sure they did. But they weren't confronted with AZ trying to address the problem themselves. It is an interesting thought exercise to imagine what they might have done.

I have seen polls that show >70% of America agrees with Arizona in this case.

This is going to cost the Dems dearly.

Maybe more interesting is why Arizona waited this long to do it. This certainly isn't a new problem for AZ. And anyone who's been to law school would understand the doctrine of preemption. Surely the AZ legislators knew in advance that the federal government wouldn't just let this slide. I think this issue would be embarrassing to any administration, not just Obama's. Maybe AZ made a political calculation here and purposefully waited to dump this in the Dems lap.

[wuapinmon]

While it might be dumb politically, it is the right thing to do. I'm not saying that this Administration is doing things right for rightness sake, but in this case, this is the right thing to do. The Executive Branch has to defend the Constitution and the Rights of the People.

[falafel]

While it might be dumb politically, it is the right thing to do. I'm not saying that this Administration is doing things right for rightness sake, but in this case, this is the right thing to do. The Executive Branch has to defend the Constitution and the Rights of the People.

And you certainly can't set the precedent of allowing the states to step all over the federal government's toes. I'm sure any state would respond the same way to the federal government usurping a right given to the states.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Maybe more interesting is why Arizona waited this long to do it. This certainly isn't a new problem for AZ. And anyone who's been to law school would understand the doctrine of preemption. Surely the AZ legislators knew in advance that the federal government wouldn't just let this slide. I think this issue would be embarrassing to any administration, not just Obama's. Maybe AZ made a political calculation here and purposefully waited to dump this in the Dems lap.

The murder of the rancher is what lit the fuse. I don't think it was a calculated move designed to force the Obama administration to take an unpopular position. Brewer and Kyl have run political circles around Obama in the process and most of it is Obama's fault. There are two parts to the illegal immigration/border enforcement issue: 1) Keeping law-abiding (other than entering the country illegally) people out who just want to come here to work; and 2) Keeping out criminals and drug traffickers.

We're seeing a little bit of Miami of the 80s play out along the border. The cartels and drug traffickers are fighting it out. To not beef up security along the border is akin to keeping Miami's ports almost completely open during the 80s. Obama's political gamble is coming at the expense of real and valid concerns of the border states that are totally separate from the "they took our jobs" redneck concerns.

Build a damn wall and liberalize the guest worker program. This isn't that hard to figure out. The wall works quite well in California.

[The_Tick]

While it might be dumb politically, it is the right thing to do. I'm not saying that this Administration is doing things right for rightness sake, but in this case, this is the right thing to do. The Executive Branch has to defend the Constitution and the Rights of the People.

Which people are you referring to?

[falafel]

The murder of the rancher is what lit the fuse. I don't think it was a calculated move designed to force the Obama administration to take an unpopular position.

I will admit ignorance, but you've got to wonder what AZ would have done with this if all things were equal and the conservatives were in control.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

I will admit ignorance, but you've got to wonder what AZ would have done with this if all things were equal and the conservatives were in control.

Well, the economy is also in downward spiral and that doesn't help matters. There's always the "they took our jobs!" type people and they've been around since the beginning of this country. First they didn't want the Swedes and Germans around. Then they didn't want the Irish. Then it was the Jews and Italians. Now's it's the hispanics.

Hispanics were great to have around when the economy was humming along. But they're the first ones that people want out when the economy takes a nosedive. Bush was only around for about one year of the recession.

If you recall, we had the whole amnesty fight back in 2006 or 2007 (I think it was 2006). If that same fight had taken place in 2009 or 2010 with the same people in power, I think AZ would have done the exact same thing.