Someone Notify The Obama Administration, Stat!

Hey, remember back when Arizona passed its own law saying that if the Obama administration wasn’t going to enforce the immigration laws, they’d pass their own? Remember how the Obama administration said “oh, no you don’t,” and sued Arizona, saying that only the feds could enforce the law?

 

Then, remember when Georgia did the same thing, and the Obama administration also threatened the state?

 

And remember when Alabama passed its law regarding illegal aliens, and the Obama administration wasn’t happy about that either?

In each case, the Obama administration’s stance was exactly the same: immigration law is purely the bailiwick of the federal government; states have no right to enforce it. And if the federal government deliberately chooses to not enforce the law, the states can just suck it.

 

So, now we have another state thinking that it can make its own immigration policy. California is considering a measure to grant a form of amnesty to illegal aliens.

 

I think the Obama administration needs to start smacking around California like it did those other states…

Cain "Suspends" Campaign
I'm not sure whether PETA approves or disapproves
  • Anonymous

    Remember when hope and change was the saving grace????   Me either..

  • Anonymous

    Side bet say’s they help craft the legislation.

  • Sounds exactly like the solution Bush and McCain both supported before the GOP got Tea’d off and imploded and started worshiping Philanderers and Liars.

    • Anonymous

      I salute You MF’R..

    • Stephen,

      You are mistaken.  The GOP never started worshiping former President Clinton.

      • Although I’ll admit he’s starting to look better and better in hindsight.

        • jim_m

          Hell, Hoover and Harding are looking like examples of fiscal and ethical rectitude by comparison to “The Won”. 

        • retired.military

          Clinton was better than Obama but that isnt saying much.

    • retired.military

      That is why McCain isnt President right now and Bush’s approval ratings were in the 30s after he broached this subject.

      You are an idiot.

    • Stephen, you are accusing Republicans of turning into Democrats? How thoughtful.

  • Anonymous

    Heres my flag!

  • jim_m

    This sounds like a fantastic idea.

    State law does not overrule federal law so anyone granted “amnesty” in California will not have it anywhere else.  California will become (even more of) a magnate for illegals, drawing poorly educated, low skill illegals there and making the rest of the nation far less attractive for these individuals.  Let Cali endure the influx of illegals and the corresponding increase in their unemployment rate and the sapping of state resources that will accompany them.

    A grateful nation says thanks.

    • Those of us who can read disagree.

      “Regardless whether Californians would support such a measure,
      implementation would depend upon the federal government agreeing
      not to prosecute participants.”Read more: http://azstarnet.com/article_48fae88f-aedc-59ee-b117-d97c19d9fb94.html#ixzz1fVHkQjEq

      • jim_m

        What’s to disagree with?  The federal government is not enforcing the law so California granting amnesty works within their borders but not anywhere else.  Merely the reputation that illegals will have an easier time of it will draw them hence.

        • Oysteria

          California cities have already declared themselves “Sanctuary Cities” and the feds haven’t done a damn thing about that.  They won’t touch this one either.

      • Anonymous

        Hey, Magnificent Dumbass: Arizona tried to get the feds to go along with their policy, or at least do their job. That went nowhere. So, by precedent, the Obama administration is obligated to sue California to keep this from going forward. Otherwise, there’s the precedent for states taking on immigration laws that Arizona could really use.

        J.

        • Silly little things like precedent, statutes, the rule of law, and the like mean nothing to corrupt dictator wannabes.

          • It means nothing period. It’s just another right wing masturbation fantasy.

          • retired.military

            “It means nothing period’

            Why yes we know that the libs dont have any respect for laws.  The OWS crowd proves that and yours and Chico’s support of them also prove it as well.

            BTW
            You have those type fantasies every time you hear Obama speak.  Or was it Barney Frank.

        • By precedent they are obligated? Lol…On what planet? FoxNewsWorld?

          I love it when people speak out of their ass. 

          • jim_m

            Obligated in the sense that if they want their supposed precedent to stand they must oppose it. If they do not then they create a counter precedent that states may create and enforce immigration laws and that the Federal Government does not preempt the states in matters of immigration.

            Like other belligerent lefties here, you seem to have a reading comprehension problem.

          • They “must:… because the right wing says so.

            “If they do not then they create a counter precedent that states may create and enforce immigration laws and that the Federal Government does not preempt the states in matters of immigration.”

            False. Simply not true. Each law is a separate case and can be challenged or ignored based on its merits.

            Really, the whole “precedent” argument is right wing fantasy,

          • jim_m

            If you move against some laws based on the notion that the federal government has a monopoly on immigration law but allow other state immigration laws to stand you do undermine your position.  That is what I said.  The fact that you cannot wrap your brain around that simple concept is not my fault.

          • Anonymous

            Are you seriously trying to have a converasation with this guy? I mean his whole point is righties are bad. He has nothing else to say.

          • jim_m

            Of course he has nothing else to say.  If he had something intelligent to say he wouldn’t be a lefty.

            But I wouldn’t call it a conversation.  It’s kind of like talking to a recorded message.  You can say whatever you like, the same responses come regardless of whether or not they are relevant to what you said.

          • Anonymous

            Exactly

          • retired.military

            Except when it helps the left.

            We know that precedent means squat to Obama.  Take for example 100 years of bankruptcy law when dealing with GM. 

            Obama, Chico, and Stephen feel that it is okay to just make up the law as it suits them.

          • retired.military

            Is that why you have your head up it so you can hear better?

            “By precedent they are obligated? ‘

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent

            In common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a principle or rule established in a legal case that a court or other judicial body may apply when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “precedent” as a “rule of law established for the first time by a court for a particular type of case and thereafter referred to in deciding similar cases.”[1]
            In other words precedent can be defined as “an already decided decision which furnishes the basis for later cases involving similar facts and issues.”

            http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/precedent

            The use of precedent has been justified as providing predictability,
            stability, fairness, and efficiency in the law. Reliance upon precedent
            contributes predictability to the law because it provides notice of what a
            person’s rights and obligations are in particular circumstances. A person
            contemplating an action has the ability to know beforehand the legal outcome. It
            also means that lawyers can give legal advice to clients based on settled rules of law.

            The use of precedent also stabilizes the law. Society can expect the law,
            which organizes social relationships in terms of rights and obligations, to
            remain relatively stable and coherent through the use of precedent. The need is
            great in society to rely on legal rules, even if persons disagree with
            particular ones. Justice louis d.
            brandeis emphasized the importance of this when he wrote, “Stare
            decisis is usually the wise policy, because in most matters it is more
            important that the applicable rule of law be settled than that it be settled
            right” (Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U.S. 393, 52 S. Ct.
            443, 76 L. Ed. 815 [1932]).

            Reliance upon precedent also promotes the expectation that the law is just.
            The idea that like cases should be treated alike is anchored in the assumption
            that one person is the legal equal of any other. Thus, persons in similar
            situations should not be treated differently except for legally relevant and
            clearly justifiable reasons. Precedent promotes judicial restraint and limits a
            judge’s ability to determine the outcome of a case in a way that he or she might
            choose if there were no precedent. This function of precedent gives it its moral
            force.

            Precedent also enhances efficiency. Reliance on the accumulation of legal
            rules helps guide judges in their resolution of legal disputes. If judges had to
            begin the law anew in each case, they would add more time to the adjudicative
            process and would duplicate their efforts.

            The use of precedent has resulted in the publication of law reports that
            contain case decisions. Lawyers and judges conduct legal research in these
            reports seeking precedents. They try to determine whether the facts of the
            present case precisely match previous cases. If so, the application of legal
            precedent may be clear. If, however, the facts are not exact, prior cases may be
            distinguished and their precedents discounted.

            Though the application of precedent may appear to be mechanical, a simple
            means of matching facts and rules, it is a more subjective process. Legal rules,
            embodied in precedents, are generalizations that accentuate the importance of
            certain facts and discount or ignore others. The application of precedent relies
            on reasoning by analogy. Analogies can be neither correct nor incorrect but only
            more or less persuasive. Reasonable persons may come to different yet defensible
            conclusions about what rule should prevail.

            The judicial system maintains great fidelity to the application of
            precedents.

          • Anonymous

            Are you trying to make Steven’s head explode?

          • No, he’ sjust filling up the blog with nonsense that has nothing to do with the constitutionality of laws and the reasons why federal law supersedes state laws.

            It’s just cut and paste bullshit by someone pretending to know what he’s talking about.

            he doesn’t.

      • Oysteria

        “Regardless whether Californians would support such a measure,implementation would depend upon the federal government agreeingnot to prosecute participants.”

        And that’s the point exactly.  In order for the federal government to remain consistent (Don’t laugh.  Oh hell, go ahead and laugh) they should block the measure, as the feds have clearly stated that enforcement of immigration law, as it is written, is within their purview only.

        • jim_m

          Yes.  In order to be consistent the DOJ should oppose this law, but they won’t.  The left doesn’t believe that the law should be enforced in a consistent or rational manner.

          Wasn’t it Sotomayor who said that the idea that one should be able to go into a court and predict the outcome of any case based on an understanding of the law is foolish?  The left has never believed in the equal application of the law.  If they did they could never justify income redistribution.

          • Laws, like Arizona’s racist law, strip away rights and liberties and therefore are opposed.

            So any other state law that comes around should be opposed just on principal? Ignoring whether it’s a racist attempt to strip away more rights and civil liberties?

            That’s just plain stupid.

          • jim_m

            Stupid like the fact that Rhode Island already has a law that is nearly identical to Arizona’s?

            And how is Arizona’s law racist?  It merely allows the state to detain people for violation of the Federal law.  Now please explain how the Federal immigration law is racist or have you not even bothered o educate yourself on this issue and you are just repeating lefty talking points thinking hat you are informed?

            Stop calling everyone stupid and racist if you want us to think that you, yourself are not both stupid AND racist.  Although I suspect that it is going to be a hard feat for you to accomplish.

          • If a law singles is aimed at treating one race of Americans differently than another, that’s a racist law.

          • jim_m

            Ok.  SO where does the AZ law single out any one race?

            By your own definition it is not a racist law and you are just spouting ignorant Bullshit.

            Illegal aliens regardless of race are breaking the law.  The accusation against AZ has been that the law is racist.  It is not.  The subsequent accusation is that the law will be applied in a racist way.  That has not been demonstrated and is not a reason to preempt the law.

            Because the claim of racism inthe enforcement means hat the law must be enforced the administration tried to stop the law by claiming preemption.

            With every post you show yourself to know nothing of the law and everything of empty leftist talking points.

          • jim_m

            Ignoring whether it’s a racist attempt to strip away more rights and civil liberties?

            Please expound on how enforcing existing Federal immigration law is racist.  That’s what the Arizona law does.  If you can’t demonstrate how that law is racist hen STFU.

            If Federal law is racist then why does obama not repeal or modify it?

            You’re the one talking out their ass.

          • The techniques to be used by Arizona law enforcement were racists. The application of the law depended upon race.

          • jim_m

            The techniques to be used by Arizona law enforcement were racists.

            Oh.  So now we are to presume that ignorant leftists are able to predict the future and the motivation of others?

            Screw you.  The racism is all in your head.  As I said earlier”  When a lefty accuses people of racism we can be pretty sure that all the racism is in their heart and nowhere else.

          • Anonymous

            News flash, Stephen: just because you call something racist, doesn’t make it so. The law was carefully written to NOT be racist, but I guess you don’t care much for facts, huh?

            The Obama administration’s position is simple — so simple, even you should grasp it: states have NO business getting involved in immigration matters. The only excuse is that they don’t want anyone enforcing the laws; they don’t have a problem with others granting amnesty.

            And you… you really need to learn some new shticks and fresh talking points. You’re getting boring, chump.

            J.

          • Actually, you are making up the Obama administration’s position.

            The administration chooses to challenge or ignore laws on a daily basis. That’s a fact. Clearly some laws are ignored while others are challenged.

            There is no mandate anywhere that every state law dealing with Immigration has to be challenged by the Feds.

            You’ve based this whole post on a fantasy you’ve invented – that because the Arizona law was challenged the California law MUST be challenged.

            That’s simply not true. Simply not true.

          • Anonymous

            Dumbass,

            I note you have not answered the challenge:

            Please expound on how enforcing existing Federal immigration law is
            racist, since that is what the Arizona law does. 

          • jim_m

            I;ll note that AND that he doesn’t understand hat the obama admin challenged the AZ law on the basis of preemption.

            He only has lefty talking points and he isn’t able to go off script.

          • Answered above

          • retired.military

            “The administration chooses to challenge or ignore laws on a daily basis. That’s a fact. ”

            First think you said right today.  And yet they are sworn to UPHOLD THE LAW.  Something they fail to do.

          • Man, how old are you? Are you posting ideas from an OWS site?

          • No, it was racist. Just because the law doesn’t mention the target race – hispanics – it was still a racist law.

          • retired.military

            Who says it is racist?  It applied evenly to everyone.  If you want to call someone racist try calling your self racist.  You disagree with Cain.  That is all the left’s standard as far as racism goes.’

          • Really? So white people were going to be asked for proof of citizenship?

            Nope.

          • jim_m

            You cannot declare a law unconstitutional because it might be applied in a racist manner. 

      • retired.military

        the point is that the FEDERAL GOVT has taken steps to stop STATES from enforcing immigration laws.  It should treat California no different than those states in this instance.   It is like the OWS crowd should be treated from a legal definition as the tea party was  but they definitely are not and are getting preferential treatment.   Only the dems dont see it that way. 

        As I said above.  YOU ARE AN IDIOT. Sorry for posting things which are obviously clear.  Twice.

        • It depends on the content of the law, moron.

          Gawd, who hot this blog with a stupid bomb? Is it mass hypnosis?

          The content of the law matters. Even a simpleton knows that.

          • jim_m

            Stop being an idiot. 

            The obama administration has opposed the Arizona law on the basis on preemption, that the federal government alone has the right to promulgate and enforce immigration laws.  This is a distortion of the concept of preemption, but the obama admin owns it anyway.  Under their own argument it doesn’t matter what the content of the law, any law on immigration made by a state is unconstitutional regardless of what the content of that law is.

            Really, if you are going to comment try to have something informed to say otherwise you just look like a fool.

          • Read what retired military said. Let me bold the relevant words.

            “the point is that the FEDERAL GOVt. has taken steps to stop STATES from
            enforcing immigration laws.  It should treat California no different
            than those states in this instance.”

            There’s no requirement that they do so, but he thinks they “should”.

            It depends on the law. Each law is challenged or not based on its merit.There is no “precedent” that “requires” that the fed challenge “every” law states pass.

          • Oysteria

            I’m not saying they are “required” do do so.  What I said in the beginning, and you so deftly have twisted over the course of this thread, is that if they were consistent they would apply the laws equally and they would equally uphold laws regardless of their personal policy positions.

          • The Arizona law didn’t apply equally. It let Az law enforcement single out people because of their race.

          • jim_m

            The AZ law did not speak to the issue of race at all.  THe racism is in you and not in the law,

          • jim_m

            And I was not responding to RM.  I was responding to your idiotic comment that “it depends on the content of the law”.

            The obama admin challenged the AZ law not based on the content but based on the idea that only the federal government had the right to make and enforce immigration law.  That being the case the federal government will have to enforce this against the CA law as well, for if they do not they create a competing precedent and risk having their position overturned int he courts (that is assuming that can win out against AZ in the first place).

          • No, really. Most state laws, for example, are constitutional and some aren’t.

            Of course the content of the law matters.

          • jim_m

            It would help if you actually read my post.

            The challenge was based not on the content but on the fact that the law was made at all.

          • retired.military

            Hey dumbass.

            Treating ONE STATE like another is called PARITY, FAIRNESS and even handedness.

            SHould is operative becuase that is the way IT SHOULD WORK.  With the left it NEVER WORKS that way.

            Piss ass poor attempt to distort the meaning of my post.

          • It depends on the content of the law.

            If the state law is unconstitutional, it shouldn’t be allowed to stand. It’s not about “fairness”.

          • retired.military

            “Really, if you are going to comment try to have something informed to say otherwise you just look like a fool.      ”

            In Stephen’s case looks are not deceiving.

          • How immature.

          • retired.military

            “The content of the law matters.”

            Here let me fix that for you, you left part of it out.

            “The content of the law matters as long as it fits what the left wants at the current time”

            THere that is what you truly meant.

      • Those of us who can read disagree.

        Stephen, I can read, and I don’t disagree.

      • retired.military

        As Bill Engvall says

        “here’s your sign”

    • Taking one for the team, as it were.

      Pity, that…

    • I agree, if this passes and is allowed to stand it sets a precedence for other States to pass other laws ignoring federal law.  I am so excited we will be able to overrule Obamacare.

  • Anonymous

    “I think the Obama administration needs to start smacking around California like it did those other states…”

    Don’t hold your breath!  After all, Kalifornia also passed the Dream Act. 

  • Mr. Tea,

    This “Stephen” fellow is making Bob Anderson look intelligent (Did I just say that?  It’s just for comparison’s sake).  Maybe it is time to call Media Matters again and ask them to send a better troll. 

  • Anonymous

    Yeah…you think California would remember what happened with their pot laws…

  • herddog505

    Did somebody let that Bob Armstrong fellow back in?

  • Jay

    So let’s review:

    The Obama Administration is pushing to enforce the immigration laws.  But let’s not forget that those are coming through and we already have 400,000 that are in need of this being contested.  Oh, let’s also just forget that this is so he can maneuver and work together with the Speaker of the House who loves to undermine him at every turn.

    And yet, I’ve heard nothing about the problems of immigration law when I’ve broached the subject and how it’s disproportionately targeted at Latinos, who I’m sure will vote Republican in protest to Obama abandoning them on the Secure Commuinities program.

    I find this quite fascinating on various levels.