stebo0728 wrote:Well lets see, lets take a corporation, with several branches or operation. Executives at each branch are allowed to set certain policies at their location. Dress code, reporting, other things that affect that location directly, however that does not prevent headquarters from handing down a mandate that all employees must wear a suit coat when on duty. Im not advocating that we eliminate the Federal government from the equation, or even that the States be allowed to usurp the Federal mandates. My point is that the states can more adequately determine what policies to set regarding the border in THEIR state. Thats not to say that said policies would not have to meet Federal guidelines, or that state policies would even have precedence over Federal policies. But the Federal policies should only be policies that support needs of the nation on the whole, and let the states deal with what affects only the state. Maybe thats Statism to an extreme, I dunno.
I'd just have to say: there's something terribly different about international matters like who is an isn't a US citizen, and where the US ends and the rest of the world begins. States don't get to determine these things - only the Federal government.
AZhitman wrote:That the Feds can shirk their responsibilities? That ICE can pick and choose which states to process and deport illegals from?
While I'm always open to the possibility that I might be misinformed, I'd like to read that.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2010/ ... -detention
Now, let's look at the Feds' case:
The lawsuit says the legislation conflicts with the federal government's need to balance the competing interests of enforcing federal immigration law with the country's diplomatic relations with other countries, including Mexico.
In reading the 25-page text of the suit, I see minimal mention of concerns about violation of individual rights. I DO see politicization, however.
Well, the Supreme Court has held over and over that, unless there's something like a distinct pattern of discrimination against a protected class, for example, it's perfectly acceptable for the government to selectively enforce the law.
What I was getting at was that there's no requirement that the US government follow-up on the illegals reported by Arizona, if it feels that the illegals Arizona keeps reporting are a waste of resources to pursue, and I find this reasoning by the logical extensions attached to the plain text in the Constitution that says this is a matter that only Congress can regulate.
And what you read was either a copy of the initial pleading - which doesn't have to say much of anything - or was a press release by the DoJ, where politicization (not sure how loose a definition you're using here) is usually to be expected.
WDRacing wrote:The real issue here is that we have polar opposite views where it comes to Federal Law and the word discretion. You believe the Feds are using the appropriate amount of discretion where Naturalization/Immigration are concerned.
Not accurate. I don't have much of an opinion on the subject, but I'm not of the blanket statement that what they're doing is wrong. They've publicly stated reasons for not enforcing it to the fullest extent of the law, and I've yet to see something that contradicts those reasons.
WDRacing wrote:This discretion has lead to a severe lack of enforcement of a Federal Law. Like all laws on the Federal scale it effects millions of people every day. Because it effects millions of people, our Government will never truly deal with the law and it's violation because it will piss off to many people. So what you consider to be discretion, we see for as something else. Lack of sack to enforce a law already on the books because it will cost votes.
That's the reason you (and other) might attribute to it, but it's not one that I see as mutually exclusive of the other reasons they've proposed which are far less objectionable.
WDRacing wrote:This isn't about fear or discretion or resources, it's about our Government being so flawed that it is barely functioning. Anyone that says contrary is either living with his head in a hole or he's ignorant. The contrary part refers to the
functional Gov btw, not anyone's opinion of the Immigration issue.
I'm a little confused. This seems to conflict with the previous section, where you said the problem has developed because of the
over-use of discretion.
WDRacing wrote:Our Government has become so polarized by the 2 party system that "the People" represented and protected by the Constitution are getting abused it. It doesn't matter whether you're a hard liner for either party, we can agree that our Gov is broken.
I'd say that it certainly seems very frustrating, and the bipolar political swings in attitudes that come with being frustrated by not getting what the public thinks they want is particularly confusing. But, as I wrote to Stebo in another thread, I'm skeptical of statements that say things have gotten worse, because it's entirely possible that we've got some pretty glossy memories.
WDRacing wrote:This law suit against AZ by the Feds is simply another in a long list of excuses to put off actually dealing a politically toxic Federal problem. A problem that would take the knee's out of most of the Democrat's house of cards. Everyone knows the Dems depend heavily on the Latino vote for reelection. So the suit is simply pandering to a demographic. Pandering that has become so common that it's become socially acceptable. Well that line of thinking goes against the Constitution itself which is a document written with one of it's main points being equality on all levels.
While this may be true, it doesn't speak to the Constitutional challenges to the law. Look, I'm not always opposed to political statements through legislation, but if you legislate poorly, you can't go crying that people are only challenging the law's validity because they don't like the message. While it's possible they don't like the message, you should probably be doing your best to make laws correctly in the first place.
WDRacing wrote:This isn't letting the Repubs off the hook since they obviously haven't dealt with the issue during any of their controlled administrations. In fact they don't care now, they are just acting like they do so the Obama admin looks bad because it's a major issue that is getting lots of media. So they can pander to their particular demographic.
THIS ^^^ is why the your Federal discretion argument doesn't hold water. If you level the playing field and put all of our citizens in the same pot where no one is pandered to the only real solution is to actually enforce the written law as it exists. The written law says that you are illegal if you come into the United States of America without due process PERIOD. Not enforcing the law is an injustice to every citizen in this country. The only difference between you and I is that I actually care that it isn't enforced where
it doesn't bother you either way. You're happy knowing it's under Federal control and since illegal immigration doesn't effect you personally, you really don't see a need for the States to enforce something that is supposed to fall solely under Federal discretion.
Look, I'm sorry, WD, but it doesn't matter if the Federal Government is abusing its discretion: the States still don't get to take the lead on this. It's
explicitly written in the Constitution. This is an issue where the 10th Amendment goes, "You're on your own, pal." If the Federal Government abuses its direction, solve the problem at the federal level, either by adjusting enforcement there or by amending the Constitution.
WDRacing wrote:Well I'm asking you to step outside of the box and look at this from a
different angle. I've tried your view on and it always comes back to the same thing. I'm simply not willing to allow the Feds so much rope because it has lead to complacency and procrastination.
I see your angle, but there are fundamental reasons why the Constitution structures the government the way it does. And dissatisfaction with the way things are at the moment doesn't seem to me to be a compelling reason to ignore those reasons.
[quote="WDRacing]The borders aren't secured and illegal immigration is allowed to go unchecked. Those are facts, you're just ok with them where as I'm not.[/quote]
I think you're on the money on that one. There aren't many political issues that, on their face, will get me riled about anything, regardless of their effect on me.
AZhitman wrote:It's also pretty short-sighted of ANY critic of SB1070 to not see the true intent of the bill.
True intent does not change actual legality.
