Supreme Court restricts impact of Ga. immigration law
NOTE: This post contains some material previously published on this blog. It is posted here as the electronic version of today’s AJC column.
Publicly, Gov. Nathan Deal embraced Monday’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling on illegal immigration, claiming that “it appears the court has upheld the major thrust of our state’s statute: That states have the right to assist in enforcing federal immigration law.”
However, there’s a noticeable undertone of caution in Deal’s statement, and in similar statements by Attorney General Sam Olens. Both men seem to realize that when read in its entirety, the court’s 5-3 opinion to overturn much of Arizona’s controversial immigration law also spells trouble for Georgia’s law.
As Deal notes, the court did recognize that “states have the right to assist” in enforcing federal immigration law. However, the key word in that phrase is “assist.” The five-justice majority was quite clear that the federal government has total authority over immigration law, and that states can assist only to the degree that the federal government allows that assistance.
The court based its ruling in part on the federal government’s clear, longstanding authority on matters of foreign policy.
“It is fundamental that foreign countries concerned about the status, safety, and security of their nationals in the United States must be able to confer and communicate on this subject with one national sovereign, not the 50 separate states,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority.
The court also ruled that federal officials have the exclusive discretion to decide how and even whether to deport those who are here illegally. Contrary to the philosophy behind the Arizona law and Georgia’s HB 87, a policy of “toss-em-all-out” is not required by federal law and cannot be dictated by state legislatures.
“Unauthorized workers trying to support their families, for example, likely pose less danger than alien smugglers or aliens who commit a serious crime,” Kennedy wrote. “The equities of an individual case may turn on many factors, including whether the alien has children born in the United States, long ties to the community or a record of distinguished military service.”
(Among other things, that language suggests that President Obama acted within his constitutional authority when he announced that his administration would not deport illegal immigrants who had been brought here as children and raised and educated as American.)
The court did uphold, at least temporarily, one provision of the Arizona law that is also echoed in Georgia law. In both states, local and state law enforcement are empowered to run immigration checks on anybody whom they arrest or detain, even for minor traffic offenses.
In theory, the justices noted, that authority can be constitutional. But if people end up being detained for long periods of time for no reason other than to let state authorities conduct an immigration check, the law will be reviewed and thrown out.
Perhaps the most surprising aspect of the case was the broad, even radical dissent filed by Justice Antonin Scalia. He began by arguing that states are sovereign entities, then complained that the majority opinion “deprives states of what most would consider the defining characteristic of sovereignty: the power to exclude from the sovereign’s territory people who have no right to be there.” In effect, Scalia was advancing the novel notion that states have an inherent right to control who crosses their borders.
“Even in its international relations, the federal government must live with the inconvenient fact that it is a union of independent states, who have their own sovereign powers,” Scalia wrote.
Just as remarkably, Scalia used his dissent to launch a political attack on Obama’s recent decision not to deport an estimated 1.4 million illegal immigrants who were brought here as children. Referring slyly to “the executive’s unwise targeting” of resources to combat illegal immigration, Scalia wrote:
“The husbanding of scarce enforcement resources can hardly be the justification for this, since the considerable administrative cost of conducting as many as 1.4 million background checks, and ruling on the biennial requests for dispensation that the non-enforcement program envisions, will necessarily be deducted from immigration enforcement.”
At a time when the court is already under suspicion of indulging in partisan politics. Scalia plays a dangerous and irresponsible game with judicial credibility.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
359 comments Add your comment
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 26th, 2012
9:18 am
“effing hippy activists”
Not much substance there. Moving along…
USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout
June 26th, 2012
9:18 am
Adam – if they felt insulted by someone saying “no means no”, imagine how WE WOMEN FEEL when we’re told that OUR lives are less important than a clump of cells
Get Real
June 26th, 2012
9:18 am
I am surprised so many libbies are on the blog this morning, I thought you would all be down at the movie set fainting at the sight of the imperialist president…oh I believe I’m having a spell..
JamVet
June 26th, 2012
9:19 am
The NYers and other Yankees are only here to claim what is rightfully theirs.
Hint, next time, don’t lose! (grin)
Normal Free...Pro Human Rights Thug...And liking it!
June 26th, 2012
9:19 am
USinUK, Ty…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6UAYGxiRwU
Paul
June 26th, 2012
9:21 am
USinUK
Sorry, that 9?03 about the guy getting pulled over in Dallas and the Italian mayor in the border city getting stopped for his tire skimming the line was from Paul.
JamVet
June 26th, 2012
9:22 am
Imperialist president?
After your neocon hero and his cast of cowards started and horrifically botched the modern Crusades (his choice of words)?
Talk about memory problems!
Joe Hussein Mama
June 26th, 2012
9:22 am
Jay — “Just as remarkably, Scalia used his dissent to launch a political attack on Obama’s recent decision not to deport an estimated 1.4 million illegal immigrants who were brought here as children. Referring slyly to “the executive’s unwise targeting” of resources to combat illegal immigration, Scalia wrote:
“The husbanding of scarce enforcement resources can hardly be the justification for this, since the considerable administrative cost of conducting as many as 1.4 million background checks, and ruling on the biennial requests for dispensation that the non-enforcement program envisions, will necessarily be deducted from immigration enforcement.”
Considering that the last paragraph of the Morton Memo (which I’ve posted here probably four ot five times by now) directly refutes Justice Scalia’s manufactured concern, I feel pretty comfortable in asserting that the honorable gentleman is full of horse poop.
ty webb
June 26th, 2012
9:22 am
Normal,
I resemble that.
carlosgvv
June 26th, 2012
9:23 am
ty webb – 9:08
And, you auditioned for that porn movie, but just didn’t measure up.
John Birch
June 26th, 2012
9:24 am
kayaker – You’re right on both counts. When the traitor Reagan gave the first 3 million amnesty it encouraged the next 10 million. And this is more about class than party. If you live in a gated community, have the best health care money can buy and send your kids to private schools the illegal aliens are just a cheap source of labor. If you send your kids to public school where scarce resources are misdirected toward ESOL classes (also thanks to the SCOTUS) and wait hours in overcrowded emergency rooms, or can’t find a construction job because a Mexican will do it for less money, the invasion is a problem.
USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout
June 26th, 2012
9:24 am
Normal … but the song IS about me (although, I never wear a cravat .. and absolutely never gavotte )
kayaker 71
June 26th, 2012
9:24 am
Joe, 9:22,
We have the resources….. now if we only had the balls to get it done.
Paul
June 26th, 2012
9:24 am
Recon
“What happens if Obama loses and Romney orders Homeland Security and the DoJ to enforce existing immigration laws. ”
It’s difficult to predict.
Will he expand the federal bureaucracy to accommodate the increased workload? Will he raise taxes to pay for it? Will he deficit spend to fund it?
Will he make due with current manpower and lay out a 25-year plan for processing all those people?
Will he pull government employees – law enforcement, attorneys, personnel types, operations centers, etc, off what they’re now doing to ‘enforce ALL” the immigration laws? Or will he ignore enforcing other laws to concentrate on enforcing ALL the immigration laws?
What will Romney do?
I don’t think even Romney knows what he’ll do.
USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout
June 26th, 2012
9:25 am
Paul – 9:21 – I had a feeling it was from you …
hey, did you see my killer diller pasta salad??? just WAIT until I post my Sassy Summer Jam!!!
ty webb
June 26th, 2012
9:26 am
carlos,
that was a low blow.
USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout
June 26th, 2012
9:27 am
ty – 9:26 – (polite golf clap)
well played, sir … well played …
Jefferson
June 26th, 2012
9:27 am
You can’t trust a state when it comes to fairness, the feds must step in.
carlosgvv
June 26th, 2012
9:27 am
stands – 8:34
I just ask a simple question and you become all emotional.
Get a grip and take a pill.
Joe Hussein Mama
June 26th, 2012
9:28 am
K71 — “Joe, 9:22, We have the resources….. now if we only had the balls to get it done.”
Yes, well, ICE leadership says we *don’t* have the resources to get it done, and that’s why they promulgated the new policy — at least a year ago.
http://www.ice.gov/doclib/secure-communities/pdf/prosecutorial-discretion-memo.pdf
Gordon
June 26th, 2012
9:28 am
The federal government should be the ones enforcing immigration law. We just need a president who chooses to enforce the law.
Paul
June 26th, 2012
9:29 am
kayaker 71
“We have the resources….. now if we only had the balls to get it done.”
Heck, we had a couple million military a decade ago, we’d given DoD funds to resource fighting a real war (think invasion of S Korea) and a major engagement elsewhere, and all we heard was “we’re stretched too thin, This is gonna take a looonnnnng, time, decades maybe…”
Given that track record, why think INS or Homeland or any other, much smaller in terms of manpower, money and capability, agency could do better?
Paul
June 26th, 2012
9:31 am
UKinUK
I see’em all, darlin’.
When it comes to food, you have my complete attention!
JamVet
June 26th, 2012
9:31 am
or can’t find a construction job because a
Mexican will do it fora completely unscrupulous American business owner will knowingly and illegally pay a non-citizen less money and keep the difference, theinvasionthe tens of thousands of scofflaws who do this are a problem.Fixed your selective rant…
Jefferson
June 26th, 2012
9:31 am
The GOP won’t fund the job so what do you expect, no matter who is the president.
Adam
June 26th, 2012
9:31 am
USinUK: Oh believe me it makes me mad too. And it was definitely a d*ck move (pun intended).
Adam
June 26th, 2012
9:32 am
You know what else is a d*ck move? Having the employees you are about to fire build the stage on which you will announce the mass layoff.
Oblama
June 26th, 2012
9:32 am
Obama appointed two socialists to the Supreme Court and now they are paying off for him. Who is the worst socialist of all time? Adolf Hitler.
Common Sense
June 26th, 2012
9:33 am
“The husbanding of scarce enforcement resources can hardly be the justification for this, since the considerable administrative cost of conducting as many as 1.4 million background checks, and ruling on the biennial requests for dispensation that the non-enforcement program envisions, will necessarily be deducted from immigration enforcement.”
They do more than 10 million background checks a year on those looking to buy weapons.
Now they want to cite cost as an issue?
USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout
June 26th, 2012
9:34 am
“two socialists”
ohsweetjeebus … someone else who has no idea what the word means …
Oblama
June 26th, 2012
9:34 am
Condoleeza Rice for V P.
Adam
June 26th, 2012
9:34 am
Paul:
Will he expand the federal bureaucracy to accommodate the increased workload? – No
Will he raise taxes to pay for it? – No
Will he deficit spend to fund it? – Yes
Will he make due with current manpower and lay out a 25-year plan for processing all those people?
Yes to the first part, no to the “having a plan” part.
And please, don’t anyone suggest that you think he would do any different than I just laid out. It’s pretty obvious he would do exactly this.
kayaker 71
June 26th, 2012
9:34 am
Joe, 9:28,
We could close our Southern borders in a week. I’m not talking about ICE. I am talking about boots on the ground spread out over our entire Southern border turning Mexicans around and heading them South once again. ICE is nothing but an arm of the Dept of Justice who has sued the very people who are trying to enforce immigration law. Think that ICE will do anything but what Holder and his cronies want them to do? Not on your life.
USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout
June 26th, 2012
9:35 am
“They do more than 10 million background checks a year on those looking to buy weapons.”
last time I checked … people PAY for CRBs when they’re done for gun purchases (has that changed???)
ty webb
June 26th, 2012
9:35 am
Jamvet,
careful, Jay “pals around” with Restauranteers who do the same thing.
Williebkind
June 26th, 2012
9:35 am
“so, I suppose it was okay when W decided to set aside the law that enabled funding of stem cell research.”
So you dont see the difference between murder and illegal aliens?
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 26th, 2012
9:36 am
Dnc convention low on cash
Head of dnc convention does fundraiser for Romney
I think even the democratic powers that be no longer love Obama
Oblama
June 26th, 2012
9:36 am
Hitler ran for office as a socialist – look it up. You don’t know crap so don’t act like you do.
John Birch
June 26th, 2012
9:37 am
Thanks Jamvet – You’re right but the Feds don’t enforce the laws against employing illegals either.
Common Sense
June 26th, 2012
9:38 am
So what would the reaction be if the Federal Government refused to defend a state from foreign invaders? Would the state be allowed to defend itself? Or would the Federal Government step in and sue the state to cease and desist?
And Scalia is correct in his quote. We are a nation of soverign states, with the Feds only being able to do what is stated in the US Constitution.
Those that mock Scalia show just how ignorant they are on the founding of THESE UNITED STATES.
JamVet
June 26th, 2012
9:38 am
ohsweetjeebus … someone else who has no idea what the word means …
ex-pat, to the most ignorant of our dead red neocons, the actual, accepted definitions of words are not important at all to them.
They have their own language based on anti-intellectualism.
Andy have not intellectually evolved one iota since the Scopes Monkey Trial of the 1920s and the McCarthy witch hunts of the 1950s.
larry
June 26th, 2012
9:39 am
Please, Oblama , since people dont know crap. Please define socialist.
HOT AIR
June 26th, 2012
9:39 am
Correct – Hitler was a socialist in his philosophy and there have been many other evil socialists throughout history.
Doggone/GA
June 26th, 2012
9:39 am
“We could close our Southern borders in a week. I’m not talking about ICE. I am talking about boots on the ground spread out over our entire Southern border turning Mexicans around and heading them South once again”
Have you forgotten that half or more of our “Southern border” is WATER?
Finn McCool (The System Isn't Broken; It's Fixed ~ from an Occupy sign)
June 26th, 2012
9:39 am
Oblama, Hitler was a National Socialist, not a socialist. That is fascist/right wing. look it up.
Williebkind
June 26th, 2012
9:39 am
With this ruling Obama may get thousands of more illegal votes.
Finn McCool (The System Isn't Broken; It's Fixed ~ from an Occupy sign)
June 26th, 2012
9:40 am
We could close our Southern borders in a week
Employ thousands of people to stop what, maybe 30 people a day?
larry
June 26th, 2012
9:40 am
So what would the reaction be if the Federal Government refused to defend a state from foreign invaders? Would the state be allowed to defend itself?
So I guess the state of New York should have gone after OBL?
USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout
June 26th, 2012
9:41 am
“So you dont see the difference between murder and illegal aliens?”
since no person has been murdered, I don’t think your comparison applies.
but thanks for playing.
John Birch
June 26th, 2012
9:41 am
If we would pass very tough legislation and start enforcing it, there wouldn’t be many problems rouding them up. You can surrender for voluntary deportation within the next 90 days. After that anyone found in the country illegally will get 12 months in prison followed by deportation. We wouldn’t get all of them but 90%+ would just turn themselves in.
USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout
June 26th, 2012
9:42 am
Finneus – 9:39 – but but but … it has the word SOCIAMALIST in the title, so it must be the same thing!
of course, the fact that the terrorist organization, IRA, also has the word REPUBLICAN in it is a different matter all together.
ty webb
June 26th, 2012
9:43 am
how ’bout we just annex Mexico(for the Tecate) and Canada(for the Crown)?
USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout
June 26th, 2012
9:43 am
ty – well, we’re sure as hell not going to annex Canada for their bacon!!!
Paul
June 26th, 2012
9:44 am
Hey kayaker, I was just yankin’ your chain.
DoD – Homeland – INS – the principle’s the same, as someone who was in one would realize. They may get gobs of money, they may have hundreds of thousands of employees, but when you count the number who are directly engaged in what the public perceives to be ‘the real mission’ it’s only a small fraction of the total.
Which is what the comparison with DoD and can’t ideally fight a couple minor engagements with a couple million people and billions of dollars was all about.
Williebkind
June 26th, 2012
9:44 am
USinUK – pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout
Ahhh but yes there was the intent. Do be a selective reader? It is common to all liberals.
larry
June 26th, 2012
9:44 am
Speaking of Hitler, here’s one of his biggest fans……
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/07/12107097-steve-smith-reputed-white-supremacist-causes-stir-by-winning-election-to-pennsylvania-county-gop-seat?lite
Here we go!
June 26th, 2012
9:45 am
Why is everybody saying SCOTUS upheld the biggest part of the law? SCOTUS said we are giving you a pass until the law has been implemented but will rule on it if/when (and there will be a when) we see there is racial profiling. With the sheriff from he!! in Arizona, you KNOW there will be racial profiling. The sad thing is most of the policeman do NOT want to be part of this. This was not being UPHELD, it seems there was so much arguing between the justices, they could not rule – so they gave it a pass, temporarily.
Stevie Ray
June 26th, 2012
9:45 am
JAY,
Funny how when SCOTUS goes against one parties notion of righteousness, the losing party cries “judicial activism”…chat a crock…I agree with decision but wonder why anyone would defend the right of illegals to be here by restricting validation of citizenship…do you simply want to open the borders and accomodate all comers???
USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout
June 26th, 2012
9:46 am
“Ahhh but yes there was the intent. Do be a selective reader? It is common to all liberals.”
what the hell are you on about? what intent?
kayaker 71
June 26th, 2012
9:47 am
Common Sense , 9:38,
“refused to defend a state from foreign invaders”….. That’s exactly what Jan Brewer said to Bozo on the tarmac of that airport where she was shaking her finger at him. He paid no attention and blew her off. The latino vote is too important to him to enforce the law. State sovereignty is more important now than it has ever been. Scalia is most correct in his view of this issue and when Bozo and Holder pee on our Constitution and ignore the rights of states in this matter, we assume that they will pick up the ball and enforce our immigration laws. Nope. Captain John Yossarian would be most proud.
Soothsayer
June 26th, 2012
9:47 am
This whole illegal immigration problem would simply go away if godly Americans were willing to do hot, sweaty labor for $10.00 an hour and live 25 – 30 in a single house.
Oblama
June 26th, 2012
9:47 am
Webster’s – socialism – advocating government ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods – everything is state owned and there is no private property. SOCIALISM is also referred to as “progressive”.
USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout
June 26th, 2012
9:47 am
from Larry’s link: “In March 2003, Smith and two other members of the Keystone State Skinheads were arrested in Scranton, Pa., for allegedly beating a black man with stones and chunks of pavement. Smith pleaded guilty to terrorist threats and ethnic intimidation and received a 60-day sentence and probation, according to the SPLC.”
jeebus.
and you wonder why the GOP doesn’t do well with minorities.
larry
June 26th, 2012
9:48 am
of course, the fact that the terrorist organization, IRA, also has the word REPUBLICAN in it is a different matter all together.
And dont forget , Iraq had the REPUBLICAN GUARD, or was that Iran?
Doggone/GA
June 26th, 2012
9:49 am
“and you wonder why the GOP doesn’t do well with minorities”
Well, those in the GOP may wonder…the rest of us? Not so much.
Oscar
June 26th, 2012
9:50 am
do you simply want to open the borders and accomodate all comers???
_______
Nobody is in favor of that.
godless heathen
June 26th, 2012
9:50 am
Oh well, somebody has got to pick the onions.
Finn McCool (The System Isn't Broken; It's Fixed ~ from an Occupy sign)
June 26th, 2012
9:51 am
Important to remember that a socialist/communist movement had just failed in Germany. So, in order to get those po’d workers to join him, Hitler called his party National Socialists.
Regular socialism is about workers owning the means of production.
Fascism isn’t interested in class struggle – it wants the wealthy owners of production to stay in power and uses political repression and persecution to enforce state power.
larry
June 26th, 2012
9:51 am
everything is state owned and there is no private property
So is everything state owned ? And i know for a fact that i have private property.
HOT AIR
June 26th, 2012
9:51 am
Currently we have a socialist led Senate and a socialist in the White House who is bought and paid for by socialists.
ITS ALL BUSHS FAULT
June 26th, 2012
9:52 am
The founding fathers also made slavery legal……jack@$#%^*
USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout
June 26th, 2012
9:52 am
“everything is state owned and there is no private property”
and who in the Obama administration (or SCOTUS) is advocating for that???
please, show your work.
ITS ALL BUSHS FAULT
June 26th, 2012
9:53 am
For something to be found doesnt have to be lost first? Idiots on the right.
larry
June 26th, 2012
9:54 am
Waiting for the remark ………..But ” GM, blah blah blah……..in 3………….2………..1.
Oblama
June 26th, 2012
9:54 am
Is everything state owned? NOT YET BUT OBAMA IS WORKING ON IT.
JamVet
June 26th, 2012
9:55 am
If we would pass very tough legislation and start enforcing it, there wouldn’t be many problems rounding up the American employers and businessmen. They can surrender for voluntary prosecution within the next 90 days. After that anyone found having profited from using illegals will get 12 months in prison followed by heavy fines. We wouldn’t get all of them but 90%+ would just turn themselves in.
Oscar
June 26th, 2012
9:55 am
Currently we have a socialist led Senate and a socialist in the White House who is bought and paid for by socialists.
____________
Always good to hear from our reporter on Neptune.
Stevie Ray
June 26th, 2012
9:56 am
Oscar,
What do the liberals want immigration policy to look like? By recent judgment and historical enforcement at federal level, seems to me it’s, at best at political football…
USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout
June 26th, 2012
9:56 am
“Currently we have a socialist led Senate and a socialist in the White House who is bought and paid for by socialists.”
same 9:52 question for you -
kayaker 71
June 26th, 2012
9:56 am
So, now we have a federal government who will not enforce our immigration laws and sues states that attempt to enforce their own laws against illegals. Ever wonder why? They hide behind this “profiling” bull sh*t and all the liberals swoon and grovel at the feet of the “Great One”, for being “fair”. Holder is somehow the great savior of minorities and he and Bozo are going to save them from the evil Republicans who just want them to go home. It’s VOTES, my friends, nothing but votes. And if you refuse to believe that, you are more stupid than even I give you credit for.
HOT AIR
June 26th, 2012
9:57 am
Socialists hate state’s rights and oppose them at every turn………. that’s Obama.
Get Real
June 26th, 2012
9:57 am
JamVet, Bush is not my hero, far from it actually, but he never circumvented the constitution (bypass congress) to achieve his desired outcomes. I don’t agree with a lot he did or did not do but “them’s the facts”
Soothsayer
June 26th, 2012
9:57 am
You don’t want to mess with Italians. How about the street vendor selling those shields. I’ll bet he made out like a bandit.
ragnar danneskjold
June 26th, 2012
9:57 am
My sympathies generally lie with immigrants, and I generally think Congress incompetent to quantify the number of immigrants who should be allowed to come to the US. Nevertheless, our host’s criticism of Scalia’s argue is not valid. I cannot imagine why Scalia’s truthful notation of the enforcement preferences of President Obama should be a basis for criticism of Scalia.
In the opinion Scalia also wrote: “There has come to pass, and is with us today, the specter that Arizona and the States that support it predicted: A Federal Government that does not want to enforce the immigration laws as written, and leaves the States’ borders unprotected against immigrants whom those laws would exclude.” Did that not prove prescient, when Ms. Napolitano – hours after the the opinion was published, announced that ICE would no longer accept calls on detained illegals? We now have a chief executive officer who refutes his oath of office: faced with a final interpretation of the Constitution, he declines to enforce the laws.
USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout
June 26th, 2012
9:57 am
“Is everything state owned? NOT YET BUT OBAMA IS WORKING ON IT.”
and your proof???
evidence???
you know … a little thing to back up your backasswards claims?
lynnie gal
June 26th, 2012
9:57 am
I think we need to increase the amount of justices on the Supreme Court to 11. This situation with 9 justices shows that with only 9, the court can easily become politicized. If Obama and the Dems win big this next election, they should pack the court so that undemocratic, plutocratic rulings like Citizens United can be overturned.
Tundra Dude
June 26th, 2012
9:58 am
kayaker wrote, in part:
No one has had the balls to step up to the plate and uphold our standing laws regarding immigration.
True.
Eisenhower did, back in ‘54, with his “Operation Wetback”. Once the roundup began, most left voluntarily.
TaxPayer
June 26th, 2012
9:58 am
Is everything state owned? NOT YET BUT OBAMA IS WORKING ON IT.
You’re next, Oblama.
larry
June 26th, 2012
9:59 am
Is everything state owned? NOT YET BUT OBAMA IS WORKING ON IT.
That’s funny. OMG!!! Let me go git my gun!!!
That evil governmint is coming after me. Why, why they just repaved my road a few months ago . Heck, next they’s gonna come mow my yard.
Finn McCool (The System Isn't Broken; It's Fixed ~ from an Occupy sign)
June 26th, 2012
9:59 am
from Wikipedia:
National Socialism (common English short form Nazism, German: Nationalsozialismus) was the ideology of the Nazi Party and Nazi Germany.[1][2][3][4] It is a variety of fascism that incorporates biological racism and antisemitism.[5] Nazism used elements of the far-right racist völkisch German nationalist movement and the anti-communist Freikorps paramilitary culture that fought against the communist revolutionaries in post-World War I Germany.[6] The ideology was designed to draw workers away from communism and into völkisch nationalism.[7] The Nazis’ paramilitary organization, the Sturmabteilung (SA) engaged in physical attacks on its opponents, including communists, Jews, and social democrats.[8] The Nazis promoted German territorial expansionism to gain Lebensraum (”living space”) for German settlers.[9]
Normal Free...Pro Human Rights Thug...And liking it!
June 26th, 2012
9:59 am
How many millions of alleged illegals are currently residing in this country? I ask this because of one of the conspiracies I recently heard was that the “illegal alien influx” was a plot by Mexico to regain territory lost by the war in 1836…(I know, I know, but it makes more sense than Obama going nothing on gun control so as to revoke Second Amendment rights).
The theory is that if we close the borders, these millions of “Illegals” will rise up and overthrow us. Sounds ignorant to me, spoken by people who have no concept of national security or any idea of what such an act would end as…probably Mexico as a territory.
But, like with the gun control thing, the main factor here is fear. Make us afraid of our Brown Neighbors. Why not, it will improve gun sales so the NRA would be all over it. Just listen to LaPeirre’s speeches.
But, bottom line, the only way I see to deal with the “Illegal Alien Problem” is to offer a path to citizenship with no penalty so that all will sign up and then close the borders if you can’t find any other way…but always remember that our neighbors from south of the border aren’t the only illegal aliens here. There is no easy solution and “Throw them all out” mentality is just moronic.
Finn McCool (The System Isn't Broken; It's Fixed ~ from an Occupy sign)
June 26th, 2012
10:00 am
Fascist are what we liberals eat for breakfast.
ragnar danneskjold
June 26th, 2012
10:02 am
But then again, what more should we expect from a chief executive engaged in a full-blown coverup of crimes within his administration?
Paul
June 26th, 2012
10:03 am
USinUK
“and your proof???
evidence???
you know … a little thing to back up your backasswards claims?”
Y’know, USinUK, this is turning into an everyday thing. When Kamchak’s Observation began, I was really, really hoping it would be sporadic. But our friends on the Right never fail to disappoint.
Okay, first post of the day of Kamchak’s Observation:
“If we’re going to make sh1t up, no sense in being h@lf-@ssed about it.”
Steve - USA ("None of the Above")
June 26th, 2012
10:03 am
lynnie gal – “I think we need to increase the amount of justices on the Supreme Court to 11. This situation with 9 justices shows that with only 9, the court can easily become politicized.”
Why would 11 not be just as politicized as 9?
TaxPayer
June 26th, 2012
10:03 am
“Guns don’t kill, people kill.” – Eric Holder testimony to Issa.
Doggone/GA
June 26th, 2012
10:03 am
“spoken by people who have no concept of national security or any idea of what such an act would end as”
A Mexican standoff?
(sorry, couldn’t resist!)
Oblama
June 26th, 2012
10:04 am
The citizens of the U.S. aren’t “progressive” enough to vote for someone that actually says they are a socialist – of course they don’t come out and say they ignore state’s rights like Obama did with immigration, right to marriage law, and all the other state’s laws he has ordered the law makers to ignore. Obama put his left hand on the Bible and raised his right hand and swore under oath to uphold the laws of the land. He lied under oath.
Oscar
June 26th, 2012
10:05 am
What do the liberals want immigration policy to look like? By recent judgment and historical enforcement at federal level, seems to me it’s, at best at political football…
_________
I would deport any illegal who commits a crime. Limit immigration to those with work skills that we can use. And increase the border patrol and border security to eliminate illegal immigration.
godless heathen
June 26th, 2012
10:05 am
But, bottom line, the only way I see to deal with the “Illegal Alien Problem” is to offer a path to citizenship with no penalty so that all will sign up and then close the borders if you can’t find any other way…but always remember that our neighbors from south of the border aren’t the only illegal aliens here. There is no easy solution and “Throw them all out” mentality is just moronic.
Yup. We need to quit kicking the can down the road and deal with it.