-
Tebowing and ‘Polarizing’
June 11, 2013 | 7 comments
-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Yesterday Jeff noted that the Obama administration had suspended its 287(g) immigration enforcement parternship with the state of Arizona, in an apparent slap at the portion of SB 1070 that the Supreme Court actually upheld. These are the agreements that deputize state and local law enforcement officers to help enforce immigration laws and give them access to federal immigration databases.
Sean Higgins over at Investor’s Business Daily reports that two former Arizona attorneys general — one Democrat and one Republican — think the suspension will have little impact. (It should be noted, however, that neither are exactly SB 1070 fans. Grant Woods, the Republican, nevertheless said there were some benefits to the program:
Ultimately, it is unfortunate because there were a lot of good things that came out of these joint operations … Joint operations worked on gangs and human smuggling. They were very helpful at the jails, trying to sort out who’s who and who’s legal. All very important functions. So the absence of the federal agreement in that regard will be a negative for Arizona.
Democrat Terry Goddard, who lost the 2010 gubernatorial election to Jan Brewer, said this was in keeping with the Obama administration’s enforcement priorities.
I think ICE made it pretty clear. ICE won’t come out if it is a routine stop for somebody that may or may not be in this country legally but (is) not a career criminal, not repeat immigration offender or not a brand new crosser. If it is not in those three categories, ICE has said, ‘We are overwhelmed, guys. We have got far more customers than we can handle.’ … So you can report but they may not respond.
Ironically, federal cooperation with state and local authorities has been a big part of how the Obama administration has been able to boast of impressive-sounding deportation statistics. Many of the removals have been criminal aliens already in state or local custody.
View all comments (7) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/06/26/arizona-immigration-and-the-fe
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
JD| 6.26.12 @ 3:24PM
Bottom line - ICE admits they won't enforce the law, and Obama's working to ensure that no one else does either. This would be comical, if it wasn't so sad.
btims86| 6.26.12 @ 4:04PM
Instead of the blah, blah, blah from the Supreme Court and from the Beltway politicos, the only thing that matters is the fact that the "political class" does not want to enforce the border and immigration laws. The political elites want to "create a new electorate" through massive, 3rd world immigration and the desires of the American people for enforcement, deportation and even a reduction in legal immigration, be damned.
This is why Spanish language is everywhere and mosques are going up everywhere.
Al Adab| 6.26.12 @ 5:15PM
Much more than simply Spanish speakers involved here. Approximately 20% of those detained along the border hail from such bastions of Liberty as Libya, Iran, Yemen, Iraq, Morocco, etc. One might be justified to ask if those, many of whom learned Spansih in South American camps, are really entering to seek "the jobs American won't do" or if other considerations might be the motivator.
btims86| 6.26.12 @ 5:34PM
Indeed, you are correct but Arabs/Moooslims don't need to come here illegally, they have had their visa numbers increased ever since 9/11 under Jorge Booosh and those numbers have increased again under Hussein bin Obama. That's why you see mosques being raised in Anytown, USA.
mike 3/505| 6.26.12 @ 4:26PM
Thjere was a SCOTUS case at one time, regarding the "right to cross a state line." It would be very interesting, if Arizona took a bus load of illegal aliens and either dumped them across the Nevada border or across the Mexican border. I'd be interested to see if SCOTUS ruled that illegals, who were here illegally, still had the right to cross a state line.
Al Adab| 6.26.12 @ 5:12PM
The Constitution never envisioned instances in which the federal government not only refused to enforce its own laws, but activly opposed States acting to do so. Here is the significant Constitutional question: Faced with the willful opposition of the national government to enforce its own laws, what powers do the States retain to see that the laws be "faithfully executed"?
Given that the executive and administration are refusing their duty, does not the Congress under article I sec. 8 retain authority? Likewise, do not the States and the People (the ratifying bodies) retain the authority to act when the federal government refuses? Additionally, is not such action on the part of the national government tantamount to abrogation of the compact as understood by The People when ratified? I am not attempting to be glib or flip but I believe the situation re AZ and the other several States involved raises significant issues regarding the nature of the federal compact. When may the States act in their own defense?