Last Updated:August 19 @ 12:25 pm

Obama Blasted for Selective Immigration Enforcement

By Bobby Eberle

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Arizona's Illegal Immigration law. Although most of the law was thrown out, the basic premise was left intact. That was the majority opinion of the Court. However, in writing the dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia took aim squarely at Barack Obama and his administration for selective enforcement of America's immigration laws.

First, a recap... As reported by the Associated Press, "the Supreme Court struck down key provisions of Arizona's crackdown on immigrants Monday but said a much-debated portion on checking suspects' status could go forward."

Side note: Here's our liberal bias lesson for today. If someone were to come to this country through legal channels and take up residence in Arizona, would that person be the target of Arizona's law that the Supreme Court reviewed? NO! Thus, Arizona is not and was not "cracking down" on "immigrants" in general. The law was made to address the problem of ILLEGAL immigration and to give Arizona some means of dealing with it. The Associated press with its phrase "crackdown on immigrants" tries to portray an image that is strikingly different from reality.

Ok, back to the story:

The court did not throw out the state provision requiring police to check the immigration status of someone they suspect is not in the United States legally. Even there, though, the justices said the provision could be subject to additional legal challenges.

The decision upholds the "show me your papers" requirement for the moment. But it takes the teeth out of it by prohibiting police officers from arresting people on minor immigration charges.

The court struck down these provisions: requiring all immigrants to obtain or carry immigration registration papers, making it a state criminal offense for an illegal immigrant to seek work or hold a job and allowing police to arrest suspected illegal immigrants without warrants.

Of course, the ruling itself lead to more problems than it solves. Arizona police can still stop a person for a minor offense -- say a traffic violation. In the course of that incident, if the officer suspects the person is in the country illegally, the officer can ask for proof of citizenship. However, if the person IS an illegal alien, the officer can't do anything about it. Wow! That's some solution.

As reported by The Hill, Justice Antonin Scalia, in writing the dissent, "ripped President Obama's new deportation directive when he offered his minority opinion on the Arizona immigration ruling."

The conservative justice accused Obama of selectively enforcing only those immigration laws that he deems appropriate and said states would never have joined the union if the framers of the Constitution had intended for the executive branch to wield power in such a way.

Scalia, the longest-serving justice on the high court, was not arguing that the administration's policy was unconstitutional.

"The President said at a news conference that the new program is 'the right thing to do' in light of Congress's failure to pass the administration's proposed revision of the Immigration Act.7," Scalia wrote. "Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so."

Rather, Scalia questioned the administration's motives, arguing that it didn't make sense for the U.S. to sue to prevent a state from implementing partial immigration reform while unilaterally enforcing another set of partial reforms.

In his dissenting opinion, Scalia wrote, "Arizona has moved to protect its sovereignty -- not in contradiction of federal law, but in complete compliance with it."

The laws under challenge here do not extend or revise federal immigration restrictions, but merely enforce those restrictions more effectively. If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State. I dissent.

Scalia's opinion should make everyone think about what the Obama administration is doing and how it does NOT comply with the U.S. Constitution. Whether we are talking about laws on voting rights, same-sex marriage, or illegal immigration, if there are laws on the books, the Obama administration CANNOT simply pick which ones to enforce and which ones to ignore. It is up to the courts to rule on constitutionality... not the president.

Arizona is trying to do what the federal government refuses to do. We must crackdown on the flow of illegal immigration before we can ever possibly address what to do about those already here.

VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
Rate this post:
Rating: 9.6/10 (218 votes cast)
Obama Blasted for Selective Immigration Enforcement, 9.6 out of 10 based on 218 ratings





Don't leave yet! Add a comment below or check out these other great stories:

64 Comments

  1. inluminatuoComment by inluminatuo
    June 26, 2012 @ 8:52 am

    How do you call them Supremes , and their opinions superior when we continuously get inferior decisions from a progressive packed court? So what if the State Cops can stop and arrest illegals, if the federal government who they turn them over to just lets them go? Whatever happened to enforcing the laws of the land and behaving civilly, like not breaking into someone else’s country and home with drugs, disease, crime that always follows in the wake of people who feel they are above the law. Guess what Mr. President, you are not suppose to make new laws by ignoring the ones already on the books. You were not elected to play God and selectively enforce only those laws that serve you and your party’s purpose. You were elected to represent ALL OF AMERICA and protect and defend our Constitution, defend our borders and validate the will of THE PEOPLE, not your own. You WILL pay the price in November to the thinking class of Americans who know how to collect honest wages and place honest votes.

    I can still see in my mind’s eye our self proclaimed Constitutional expert scholar of a President lecturing our Supreme Court Judges at his state of the union address and them shaking their heads in disbelief and longing for the day they could spank this puerile progressive misbehaving Child-In –a-man’s-body who thought he knew more of American history and jurisprudence than they did. When that miss-planted, over fertilized Obamacare creeping vine of a nightmare that strangles our American tree of liberty, finally bears the tainted fruit for all to taste, our supreme court will rightly shoot it down in flames. Obama’s true agenda of attempting to impose his will upon the unsuspecting captive AMerican people with an unreadable 2800 page Obamacare nightmare of a law, like his attempts to impose his will on our justices while being held in a captive audience, will become self evident to the people who put him in power to repair our economic lives, and grow our Tree of Liberty,but only succeeded in burying the roots of our freedom and our economy deeper into the fodder of socialist manure. Remember in November!

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.7/5 (65 votes cast)
    • genesalComment by genesal
      June 26, 2012 @ 9:11 am

      The Supreme Court seemed to be the last branch you could depend on. Seems not anymore. Thursday will be the big test. Will they strike the whole thing down or do as they did with the Arizona law? Right now I don’t have faith in them and don’t really expect much from them now. We’ll see Thursday.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.7/5 (40 votes cast)
    • inluminatuoComment by inluminatuo
      June 26, 2012 @ 11:18 am

      I hear the Democrats now have a new Capitalist antiseptic on the market called Hydrogen Barakside, guaranteed to cure you of all your money issues should you catch a nasty case of free market capitalism. It is guaranteed to Kill Jobs on contact.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.6/5 (34 votes cast)
    • Blu OwenComment by Blu Owen
      June 26, 2012 @ 11:30 am

      American’s today are witnessing an incursion by a large number of people into a our country and they are impacting the sphere of our economic system. That is almost the exact definition of the word invasion which by the Constitution the federal government has a duty to protect the States and the people from.
      Under Title 8 of the U.S. Code the U.S. federal Immigration Laws and 28 U.S.C. § 1251 of the U.S. code describes the jurisdiction individual states have. Congress maintains total authority over U.S. Immigration, while the President’s authority is restricted to refugee policy.
      Obama will probably try to make the case for granting a wholesale semi-amnesty for illegals under refugee policy. There is only one problem with this defense and that is that it must be considered on a case by case basis and adjudicated by the courts and THAT IS the law.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.5/5 (28 votes cast)
    • Blu OwenComment by Blu Owen
      June 26, 2012 @ 11:58 am

      Congress should ask for a contempt of court order against the Obama administration for consequential, and constructive contemptible results by denying Arizona the ability to check immigration status which the court stated they had the right to do.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.3/5 (27 votes cast)
    • genesalComment by genesal
      June 28, 2012 @ 11:18 am

      Guess I was right about the supreme court. Their new book should be ‘How to Prepare a Country for the Buzzards’.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)
  2. onewildmanComment by onewildman
    June 26, 2012 @ 9:26 am

    This is one more reason to impeach Obama. This action he has taken is clearly a violation of his oath of office. It should now be obvious to even liberals that Obama thinks he is all powerful.

    He has basically refused to follow the courts decision. He needs to go now. He should be in jail. Since he is president he should be incarcerated for life. He is and has been a threat to the security of this nation!

    It’s time to grow some nad’s congress. The country is more important than any political career. In fact the country is more important than any one party.

    If you loved this country and are proud to be an American you would never vote for a liberal democrat. Liberals are a contradiction to the security and sovereignty of the United States. If you are not proud of America or of being an American. Get to step-en we don’t need you here!

    IMPEACH OBAMA NOW! ! ! ! !

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.2/5 (21 votes cast)
    • nametabsComment by nametabs
      June 27, 2012 @ 2:53 pm

      Its too late in his term for impeachment. BUT not to late to tar and feather the SOB.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (5 votes cast)
  3. lwessonComment by lwesson
    June 26, 2012 @ 9:27 am

    Thomas Jefferson, the guy on the Twenty, thought that the potential death of The Republic would rest in the hands of the Courts. He had NO inkling that a VAST repopulation effort, would likewise wash The Republic down the drain of history. But here, we triple down with the Courts, and an Imperial Presidency, bound and determined, to end the Nation, terminate The Representative Republic. FORWARD!

    If we were to say that The Republic was our “Baby, our Child”, we would assume that in looking for a Baby Sitter, a Nanny, that we would pick someone who likes our Child. No? NO! We have within the Supreme Court, those that not only do not like the Child but question it’s very existence. We have a “Butler”, who likewise, sees nothing special about the Child and wants it’s termination. FORWARD!

    We come to this point in history, for many reasons. History is repleat with examples of just such an arrival. The Founders were most wary that we could not KEEP the Representative Republic, despite their efforts in safeguards. THEY were right!

    Go ahead, guess what the Founders would say?

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.5/5 (30 votes cast)
    • thegreatricardoComment by thegreatricardo
      June 26, 2012 @ 3:35 pm

      Unfortunately, they’d tell us that, “You reap what you sow.”

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.5/5 (4 votes cast)
    • joelinpdxComment by joelinpdx
      June 26, 2012 @ 6:35 pm

      Thomas Jefferson is actually on the two…not the 20.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.0/5 (4 votes cast)
    • genesalComment by genesal
      June 26, 2012 @ 6:40 pm

      And Obama in on the 3 dollar bill.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.2/5 (6 votes cast)
    • LAPhilComment by LAPhil
      June 26, 2012 @ 6:43 pm

      Don’t laugh, I wouldn’t put it past him to have a new denomination with his picture on it.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.3/5 (7 votes cast)
    • lwessonComment by lwesson
      June 27, 2012 @ 8:50 am

      This is the SECOND time that I put old Jefferson out on the wrong currency, to see if anyone picks this bill up! You win, joelinpdx!

      What The Founders, actually wrote, thought, well, Founders WHO?

      Teaching in Public School, and openly talking about those old dead White Men, well it was if I had pushed myself into a portal of Medieval punishments. Might as well have put on a paint mustache, dyed my hair black, and donned on a Brownshirt, to give a lecture, a speech, as far as the quasi-Marxists that run things in Education are concerned. There is a camp in my future, and it isn’t Chippewa.

      At the time, I thought this negative Administrative action, was, well, crazy, unique… . Education is a comfy comfy bastion of The Left. The Fraud was speaking at some public school yesterday, with fawning teachers in the background… had to flip the channel asap.

      There is a scene in, Ride With the Devil, an Ang Lee movie, that our company worked on, about the very late unpleasantness. The sad host of some party, talks about how the first thing that he sees put up by, THOSE people, are not Churches, but Public Schools, and he knows that his struggle will not win.

      Ang Lee, was adamant at least, about history.

      I thought about that comment for some time. Recalled, my struggle, to pass on information about The Republic and it’s Founders, free from the pablum, the cheeze-whiz history… . Wow, perhaps that is it. No wonder Obama and his cohorts go on and on about “teachers–schools”. No wonder that they DESPISE home schooling, private schools…

      Recall a fellow teacher girlfiend bragging that she will, The Left, “get the kiddies!” “And that little dog too?”

      Cheers!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.0/5 (5 votes cast)
    • genesalComment by genesal
      June 27, 2012 @ 12:40 pm

      …. and I was talking about ‘Que_er as a three dollar bill’

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.6/5 (7 votes cast)
    • lwessonComment by lwesson
      June 27, 2012 @ 12:45 pm

      LOL! genesal

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.3/5 (6 votes cast)
  4. aboynamesueComment by aboynamesue
    June 26, 2012 @ 9:41 am

    What a JOKE! Why would a police office waste his/her time stopping these folks if they can’t do anything about it. Maybe just to say ” Hey good for you”, now have a nice day. What has this world come to?

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.5/5 (24 votes cast)
    • inluminatuoComment by inluminatuo
      June 26, 2012 @ 11:24 am

      Just Brand a large “I” on their forehead to identify them easier the 2nd, and 3rd, and 4th time they get stopped. Employers might hesitate to give them the jobs that belong to valid immigrants and legal citizens.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.1/5 (16 votes cast)
    • CharlieComment by vietnamvet
      June 26, 2012 @ 12:29 pm

      In the course of the interview, the officer should note the alien’s address and place of employment.

      The name should be added to a website naming all known illegals, and the employer should be investigated under the Arizona law that says all employers must use E-Verify for hiring.

      That IS a current Arizona law, and the Feds have NOT knocked it down. The employer CAN be prosecuted under Arizona law … and should be. THAT should send some illegals packing …

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.5/5 (19 votes cast)
    • IctheliteComment by Icthelite
      June 26, 2012 @ 3:19 pm

      There are many things a person can find themselves under the scrutiny of law enforcement for. Swerving across a single or double solid line in the road, weaving in and out of traffic, failure to come to a complete stop at a controlled intersection, the list just keeps going on and on. Not to mention not having a valid driver’s license, no insurance, improper registration. **
      I like a scenario someone posted once about a governor in some state requiring all vehicles to be towed and impounded for any afore mentioned offences.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 2.3/5 (4 votes cast)
  5. Don CauleyComment by Don Cauley
    June 26, 2012 @ 10:13 am

    The divide in the Supreme Court shows the real danger we are in to lose our republic form of government. Saclia’s take on the Arizona law was the closest to our constitution than the liberal views of the sitting justices. The issue was not about how the Arizona law would impact federal laws on foriegn policy but on wether states have the right to uphold federal law. Are not all law inforcement officers obligated to uphold all laws of our country wether federal or state? What was desegregation about? Federal law was enforced making the law officers of Alabama comply with federal law. Or am I mistaken. Those liberal justices never gave that a thought and that might be because the lawyers presenting the case for Arizona never gave it a thought either. The whole of the Arizona law was OK and should have been approved.

    VA:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.7/5 (24 votes cast)
    • genesalComment by genesal
      June 26, 2012 @ 12:33 pm

      To be fair, Justice Scalia dissented and said that he would have upheld the entire law. Justice Thomas likewise stated that he would have upheld the entire law as not preempted by federal law. Justice Alito agreed with Justices Scalia and Thomas regarding Sections 5(C) and 6, but joined with the majority in finding Section 3 preempted.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.9/5 (8 votes cast)
  6. g13manComment by g13man
    June 26, 2012 @ 10:15 am

    how to pay for supreme courts decision

    officer says “sorry sir , your are an illegal resident, I am not to arrest you, but hold you till the ice gets here. ”

    ICE shows up and say s ” sorry sir you may go now”

    officer says ” sorry sir ” to ice ” you have illegally parked on this STATE road, we are going to arrest YOU and impound your vehicle”
    “and you sir are to be held until ice shows up”

    impound fees will support the state and fed pays for locked up transgresses [or road work for them]

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.6/5 (19 votes cast)
    • inluminatuoComment by inluminatuo
      June 26, 2012 @ 11:29 am

      Yesterday Obama came out and ordered all direct Arizona access to ICE computer files that validates citizenship to be immediately denied. Bear in mind this is just the State of Arizona. Obama is very selctive as to who he chooses to make war upon,,,,namely anyone who stands in the way of the self God and his freedom grabbing government. He really know how to put the Dick in the word Dictator.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.4/5 (22 votes cast)
    • JDZComment by JDZ
      June 26, 2012 @ 7:36 pm

      And the DOJ has put in a 1-800 number coupled with a name listing of all Arizona law enforcement officers so that anyone stopped or anyone observing a stop by a law enforcement officer can call in a complaint if any sign of potential civil liberty violation or a violation of existing immigration policies may have occurred. How about those apples? Look, if you publicly attempt to defy the “annointed one” you are going to get punished one way or the other. The Obama administration has decided that Governor Brewer and the residents of the state of Arizona are a “write off” as far as they are concerned, because they have challenged the administration. This is the Saul Alinsky model of handling defiant citizens coupled with the heavy handed Chicago style of politics. My question is, will the real Americans in this country band together (regardless of party affiliation) and throw these radical communists out of our government in November?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.2/5 (6 votes cast)
    • LAPhilComment by LAPhil
      June 26, 2012 @ 9:06 pm

      Yes, he can forget about carrying Arizona in November. And that was considered a battleground state. Smart move, Obama.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.0/5 (5 votes cast)
  7. wenramComment by wenram
    June 26, 2012 @ 10:33 am

    “The President said at a news conference that the new program is ‘the right thing to do’ in light of Congress’s failure to pass the administration’s proposed revision of the Immigration Act.7,” Scalia wrote. “Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so.”

    As someone who lived in Tucson for 15 years I can say with authority that AZ does not agree. I saw the impact of illegal immigrants in AZ as a police helicopter and a SWAT unit cornered a man outside of my apartment window in the wee hours of the morning. He was in the country illegally and was wanted for 8 counts of murder. I saw the impact environmentally as illegals trudged through the desert leaving garbage and backpacks behind as they made their way north. I saw the impact as law enforcement and EMTs would have to rescue illegals crossing the borders and becoming sunstroked in the desert, some dying there. I saw it in the face of my friend who worked as a guard in the Tucson Jail as he came home to change into clean clothes after an illegal took a bucket full of feces and urine and threw it at him.

    Illegal immigration is just that . .. ILLEGAL. And those that want to ostracize AZ for wanting to enforce the laws are ignorant of the impact illegals have on legal citizens.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.8/5 (43 votes cast)
  8. apollorbComment by apollorb
    June 26, 2012 @ 10:42 am

    What’s it going to take???

    What’s it going to take for the government to wake up. What kind of major event is in our future because they can’t do there job ..one job they should be doing!

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.5/5 (22 votes cast)
    • EllenComment by Ellen
      June 26, 2012 @ 11:30 am

      Will November be soon enough to get rid of Obama and his minions? I hope we will still have some of our country left after he is gone. What is frightening is that he will finish his assault on our country since he will not be running for office if he is given a second chance to ruin this country. If he is not re-elected I am afraid of what he will do during the lame-duck session.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.1/5 (14 votes cast)
    • inluminatuoComment by inluminatuo
      June 26, 2012 @ 11:35 am

      You have to bear in mind to a socialist, bad is good and good is bad. Those things that an individual is designed to do for himself (food, clothing, housing, nose wiping) now get to be done by the collective, and those things that the collective government was designed to do ( Like fighting wars and controlling our borders), now gets left to the individuals to accomplish. It’s preplanned American failure by role reversal of the purpose of people and government. This is why you NEVER vote in a socialist. At first appearance they look like normal healthy cucumbers but underneath the skin color they are so obsessed with, their brains have been highly pickled.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.3/5 (13 votes cast)
  9. vComment by v
    June 26, 2012 @ 11:20 am

    I am tired this being referred to as Immigration…It is An Invasion by Illegal Aliens…stop ALL the PC ****! As usual the SC can’t get their heads out of their collective A**’s! Since these people someone thousands (up to $70000) to bring them in to the US money must not really be the issue…they don’t want to speak English (so must not really want to become part of the US…..they do however think it OK to committ numerous crimes and get immediately on ALL Public / Private Assistance Programs….Including Unemployment and Social Security…you can thank a lot of the Church’s for encouraging them and then helping get them on the system while Your Church keeps asking You and Your Out of Work Friends to Increase Your Contributions! Texas is being Destroyed by Illegal Aliens….Houston is overrun and they bring drugs..prostution…underage prostution…drunks…THIEVES..RAPES…MURDERS…..two young girls within

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.5/5 (18 votes cast)
  10. aboynamesueComment by aboynamesue
    June 26, 2012 @ 11:30 am

    My husband and I are constantly arguing over illegals. He feels pity for the children that were born here and have grown to be successful adults. He says, do we send them back too and me being the bad guys says, “Yes”. They are grown now and I’m sure we put them thru regular school and possibly college, and please don’t tell me they aren’t aware they are here illegally. They have options to become citizens, but hey why should they when they get everything for free. Most illegals are not ignorant people, they just want to act as if they are when you have a wreck with one. Personally, I’m fed up.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.3/5 (15 votes cast)
    • inluminatuoComment by inluminatuo
      June 26, 2012 @ 11:46 am

      Greater love hath no country than they send back to Mexico an army of millions of American educated Mexican citizens enfused with the Concepts of an American Capitalist work ethic and individaul freedom and democracy. Stop looking at what they lost and recognize what we have given them.,,,,mostly for free.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.2/5 (11 votes cast)
    • LAPhilComment by LAPhil
      June 26, 2012 @ 12:11 pm

      Aboynamedsue:
      Let me just play devil’s advocate with you here for a minute, and don’t think this means I’m in favor of illegal immigration, because anyone familiar with my history knows I’m not, and I certainly think what Obama did was underhanded and nothing less than a political move. But what the could children of illegal aliens have done even if they had found out they were brought here illegally? What options did they have? I’m waiting for the flood of one stars I’m going to get for even raising the question.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.7/5 (7 votes cast)
    • capu3471Comment by capu3471
      June 26, 2012 @ 12:18 pm

      It is a valid question, they have no rights as they are not citizens. Strip them of what they took illegally and send them packing. Plain and simple. They escape with their education and experiences. That should be enough for them to go home and fix their own country. Why does America have to be the keeper of promises. We overthrew our government in 1776 to setup our own government. They have the same ability. Overthrow their government, we will gladly provide them a copy of the Constitution translated into Spanish for them to work off of.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.4/5 (13 votes cast)
    • genesalComment by genesal
      June 26, 2012 @ 12:45 pm

      aboynamedsue is talking about anchor babies, the article is about children brought here illegally. The former are Americans, the latter illegal aliens so…..
      If they were born here they are Americans, by law. There is no sending them back. But do send the illegal aliens back and amend the 14th Amendment to correct this unintended loophole.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.2/5 (5 votes cast)
    • LAPhilComment by LAPhil
      June 26, 2012 @ 12:59 pm

      genesal, I believe she was referring to illegal alien children, not anchor babies, but hopefully she’ll clarify this. In any case my question is still open.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.0/5 (5 votes cast)
    • capu3471Comment by capu3471
      June 26, 2012 @ 1:02 pm

      Agreed, they are Americans, but attained through illegal means. Just like criminals that made money, invested the illegal funds to make legitimate money, the legitimate money becomes illegal due to the nature of how it was acquired. The same should apply to American citizenship. If it was obtained illegally, it should be revoked. The wonderful thing about laws is that they can be changed. These socialists don’t seem to understand the difference between laws and inalienable rights. One can be changed, while the other is granted by God.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.1/5 (7 votes cast)
    • inluminatuoComment by inluminatuo
      June 26, 2012 @ 2:05 pm

      When we make the political seas stormy enough for the anchor babies they will pull up anchor and return home. There must be painful consequences for illegal behavior or we all become illegitimate and lawbreakers. We become the enabling driver of the getaway car and are just as deserving in punishment as the holdup men who broke into, then broke the bank.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 2.6/5 (5 votes cast)
  11. capu3471Comment by capu3471
    June 26, 2012 @ 12:08 pm

    Have we lost touch with the big picture? I think so. The Constitution grants and guarantees protection to all United States Citizens. Notice I did not say Mexican Citizens? So who the hell is the Supreme court ruling on? They have no authority over Mexican citizens. A Mexican citizen has no rights to violate in this country.

    Sovereign means “Self-governing; independent”. As long as they don’t violate Federal law or act more stringently upon the laws set forth by the Constitution, they are well within their rights.

    What is the punishment for violating the laws? Is the U.S. Government going to send in troops? Doubt it. That’s civil war, and I don’t think this president is dumb enough to take that action… or is he?

    So before the decision of the Supreme court is taken too heavily, consider the consequences and the benefits and do what needs to be done.

    The United States government is not willing to take action, even though they do not deny the problem exists. So why the hell should anyone sit around while their homes, neighborhoods and cities are destroyed?

    The Mexicans are invading our country. The entire reason we have a Federally based military is to protect us from enemies both foreign and domestic. What the hell are domestic enemies if not ILLEGAL immigrants? Does this only apply to militant groups that think our government has gone off track? Or does it apply to citizens from another country invading our neighborhoods and cities? Do they have to have on uniforms to make them enemies? If so, then terrorists aren’t are enemies as they don’t wear uniforms. If the President refuses to dispatch troops to combat the enemies, then the state has full authority to organize and assemble it’s militia. DO SO!

    The Federal Government sending a bunch of civilians to handle the situation is not acceptable as this is not a point of negotiation that requires diplomats or bureaucrats. There is no one to negotiate with.

    Another thought, if Mexicans can come across the border, what is stopping the terrorists? Who says they aren’t terrorists? Are they not committing crimes against the country? Doesn’t homeland security apply here? Isn’t this another avenue of approach? If an Iranian terrorist wants to enter the country they could simply go to Mexico and head north. And we can’t stop them? I would say we have lost touch with reality, and this proves that the Patriot Act and Homeland Security is simply a guise to squash our rights as Americans.

    Homeland Security is too busy tracking down pissed off Americans to deal with the real problems, such as invading Mexicans. The funny thing is this is one of the things Americans are pissed off about. But our wise leader has opted to deal with the symptom instead of the problem. Quell the citizens that rise up because of the problems, instead of dealing with the problems that caused them to quell up in the first place. Hurry up November! This idiot has to go…

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.8/5 (16 votes cast)
    • apollorbComment by apollorb
      June 26, 2012 @ 12:30 pm

      Amen !

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.3/5 (6 votes cast)
  12. ccfontenComment by ccfonten
    June 26, 2012 @ 12:15 pm

    I fear there may be few choices for us after Nov. That is IF we have elections in Nov!

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 3.9/5 (7 votes cast)
    • capu3471Comment by capu3471
      June 26, 2012 @ 12:20 pm

      We will have elections or we will be independent states again.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.6/5 (9 votes cast)
  13. bfranklinComment by bfranklin
    June 26, 2012 @ 12:21 pm

    Supreme Court 2012: Bought and paid for by the U.S. Corporate Cartels and Unions.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 3.7/5 (10 votes cast)
    • capu3471Comment by capu3471
      June 26, 2012 @ 12:24 pm

      How so? I am pretty sure these socialists are appointed by our idiot in chief. I don’t believe this ruling has any bearing on Corporations or Unions. I may be wrong and would appreciate an explanation of how it does relate. I am always up for learning something new.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.2/5 (6 votes cast)
  14. lizzietookanaxeComment by lizzietookanaxe
    June 26, 2012 @ 12:28 pm

    Legal? No problem. Illegal? Then YOU are the problem.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.3/5 (6 votes cast)
  15. CharlieComment by vietnamvet
    June 26, 2012 @ 12:30 pm

    “The Associated press with its phrase “crackdown on immigrants” tries to portray an image that is strikingly different from reality.”

    The AP almost ALWAYS puts a pro-Obama slant on their coverage.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.6/5 (10 votes cast)
  16. bigtopmdbComment by bigtopmdb
    June 26, 2012 @ 1:01 pm

    I’ve seen us write about “contempt of court”, “selective use of our immigration laws”, etc., ad-nausea….What El Presidente is truly guilty of is TREASON. His willingness to break any and all laws he deems necessary to undermine the US CONSTITUTION and the AMERICANS it was and still is designed to protect. He has repeatedly failed to “protect and defend” our country against all enemies foreign and domestic – which happens to include invasion by foreign nations. This so-called “leader of the free world” will not leave a free country behind if he has his way. What he wants is to leave behind 16 million new Democrats that he is going to give a free ticket to if he gets re-elected – and the courts won’t stop him!

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.6/5 (9 votes cast)
    • capu3471Comment by capu3471
      June 26, 2012 @ 1:26 pm

      I agree, he has issues, but he is not the problem. The problem is the way we think of Federal government. We seem to give the Federal government a life of it’s own as it is its own entity.

      We consider citizens of another country coming to take over our country a social issue, when in fact, it is an attack on this country. When did it become okay to stake claim in another country. If we went to another country and made claim to property or rights, we would be immediately deported if not jailed and deported.

      We the people are the government, not a subject of it. We the people of the states are the governing body and hold within us not only the authority, but the responsibility to uphold the values, rights and freedoms granted by the contract that all of the states signed. Like any contract between parties, this contract has rules and each party has a responsibility to abide and enforce those rules. Arizona, Texas, New Mexico and all of the other states that are being attacked must demand that the United States honor is agreement in providing defense against their enemies. This was why the contract was formed to begin with. The sole primary provision of the Constitution that is unquestionable is the provision of National Defense. Regardless of what socialists believe, welfare and public safety are not the concern of the Federal government and are concerns of the individual states. We must demand that our borders are defended or all the other states are in breech of contract, plain and simple. The state that was breached against then has the right to defend itself when there is a lack of action by all of the other states that entered into the contract. This is stated in the contract (Constitution). Each state has the right to assemble and organize militia’s for this very reason.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.2/5 (11 votes cast)
  17. prairelivingComment by praireliving
    June 26, 2012 @ 1:10 pm

    “If there are laws on the books, the Obama administration CANNOT simply pick which ones to enforce and which ones to ignore.”

    This should be true but in case after case we see that it is absolutely NOT. He decided not to uphold DOMA and a whole slew of other laws…and keeps doing it and getting away with it. Didn’t he swear an oath upon becoming President to “uphold the laws of the United States of America”? Then, since he isn’t doing it with numerous issues, why is he not being impeached for breaking his oath of office?

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.5/5 (8 votes cast)
    • capu3471Comment by capu3471
      June 26, 2012 @ 1:33 pm

      Simple politics, no one wants to be the one responsible for impeaching the first black president. It’s as if they are letting him finish his term just to get it over with. And yes, he is a black man, not an African American. My ancestors were from Italy, I am not an Italian American, I am an American… I will not distinguish one American from another based on the color of their skin by referring to them from where the ancestors originated, as that would be racist and discrimination.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.0/5 (8 votes cast)
  18. SAnnComment by SAnn
    June 26, 2012 @ 1:20 pm

    Your headline should read: Obama Blasted for Selective Illegal Alien Enforcement.

    Why is the word ‘immigrant’ constantly used instead of the factual term of ‘Illegal Aliens’? We have allowed the MSM and the federal government to change the use of our words so we will be schooled to what they want us to be and guided by their ‘terms’. I want to see the use of the real terms on this issue. These people are NOT immigrants they are illegal in our country whether they come across our Northern border or southern border from Mexico or any other nation. Tell it like it is. I have actually had enough of the illegals crossing our border as well as the illegal in the White House and the illegal who the Republicans are wanting to be the VP on the ballot.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.3/5 (6 votes cast)
  19. LAPhilComment by LAPhil
    June 26, 2012 @ 1:37 pm

    I don’t know why the states aren’t suing the federal government instead of the other way around. It would make way more sense. As capu3471 said earlier, the federal government has a responsibilty to the states to protect their borders and is therefore basically in a breach of contract.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.4/5 (7 votes cast)
  20. tpaine1776Comment by tpaine1776
    June 26, 2012 @ 1:51 pm

    The incorrigible statists-leftists-totalitarians who have acceded to power in this country, are monomaniacally intent upon their rendering the nation an utterly ungovernable, other than by totalitarian means, latter day Babel. It is doubtless that they, and the interests whom they represent, hold in utmost contempt the American people, are uninterested in, and in absolute terms unconcerned about, the will of the people, and are bound to dissipate, with as much rapidity as they conceivably can, whatever it is that may be remaining of our patrimony. As it is stated in the Declaration of Independence: ” In every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble Terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated Injury. A Prince, whose Character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free People.”

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.3/5 (6 votes cast)
  21. warmanna2135Comment by warmanna2135
    June 26, 2012 @ 2:11 pm

    Doesn’t anyone in this government have any common sense? I pray each day that their eyes will be opened, and it just seems to get worse. Nevertheless, not our will but yours be done, Lord.
    Let his days be short, and another take his place.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.2/5 (5 votes cast)
  22. patsyComment by patsy
    June 26, 2012 @ 2:56 pm

    Governor Brewer has one choice only. Hire a fleet of busses, load up the illegals and drive them up to Washington DC or San Francisco. Give them each $10, offload in city center late one night and leave. If this does not change their attitude nothing will. Let the people of Washington pay for their incarceration, schooling and health care. I am giving the same advise to all the Governors of the Southern states.

    I have one question. WHY HAS NO ONE DONE THIS BEFORE! If Government does not accept responsibility for the decisions they make, they must be the ones to foot the bill.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.4/5 (7 votes cast)
  23. larryiComment by larryi
    June 26, 2012 @ 3:18 pm

    A perfect day for me would be if I was locking the cell door with obama in it. God make my day

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 1.0/5 (1 vote cast)
  24. OldpatriotComment by Oldpatriot
    June 26, 2012 @ 4:22 pm

    Simple solution. Whatever the country’s policy is for illegals entering that country that should be the law here in America regarding illegals from that country. If Mexico’s law is five years in jail for illegal entry, the same should apply here. We also send the ‘from’ country the bill for incarceration.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.3/5 (6 votes cast)
  25. wdjincComment by wdjinc
    June 26, 2012 @ 5:36 pm

    Obama proves once again that he is above the Constitution. He (and the Feds) will never enforce illegal immigration. Wait until the next wave of terrorists cross over.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.2/5 (5 votes cast)
  26. joelinpdxComment by joelinpdx
    June 26, 2012 @ 6:38 pm

    Please remember, SCOTUS didn’t overturn Arizona because the Arizona law was wrong. It ruled that Arizona was stepping on the federal government’s toes. It’s Obozo and Holder who are breaking federal law by failing to enforce it.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.2/5 (5 votes cast)
  27. RubiconComment by Rubicon
    June 26, 2012 @ 6:56 pm

    I heard a number of talking heads on TV & read a number of newspaper articles on this recent Supreme Court ruling. Ironically, those biased pundits were targeting that portion of the Arizona law “they” felt was unacceptable & wrong. They did cheer those sections that were overturned, but their logic was only that the federal government runs immigration, not the states. (Of course that means the feds can refuse to enforce & now, no one can do a thing about the government’s inappropriate & selective enforcement of our laws.)
    These pundits were upset that officers could actually question someone about their legal status, “if” the officers suspected the individual(s) may be here illegally. The opinion was, ‘to ask was tantamount to racism.’ Its a real stretch on that one in my opinion. Nevermind that Arizona (and multiple other states) are beibng overrun by illegals who are commiting crimes and costing taxpayers a fortune. California recently talked about their $16 billion shortfall. Isn’t it also ironic that California’s annual costs to take care of illegal aliens is…. $22 billion? Perhaps they could end their budget shortfall by just refusing all those excess services or benefits to illegal aliens, except emergency medical care, as is prescribed by law??
    The pundits also struck out at the Court calling it biased & prejudiced. They feel the court is acting improperly if there is a ruling that comes across as conservative. Such decisions are termed ‘activist’ by these pundits. Of course the rulings the pundits favored were fair & therefore appropriate. But the ruling the pundits objected supposedly prove the court is biased and engaging in judicial activism, in the opinion of these pundits! No bias there, right!?

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 3.7/5 (3 votes cast)
  28. LJComment by LJ
    June 26, 2012 @ 8:34 pm

    Well, if you want to see more stupidity like this from the court , be sure to vote Democratic in November.A few of these geezers are bound to retire and guess who will be appointing new flaming liberal judges to fill their spot? Yes sir, the Obama himself. Stop voting in knee jerk liberals to the congress too. If you vote irresponsibly, this is the sort of result you get. No enforcement of immigration laws. Disgusting. Why have ANY laws at all????

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.0/5 (5 votes cast)
  29. all7741Comment by all7741
    June 27, 2012 @ 11:21 am

    *#^! OBAMA.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 3.7/5 (3 votes cast)
  30. pawsComment by paws
    June 27, 2012 @ 10:04 pm

    When argueing “Arizona, 1070″ before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (an extremely libral court) the Asst. Solicitor General was asked why the government brought the case before the court. The Asst. Solicitor General said it was because the administration has agreements with other governments who might be offended. The Judge asked if these “other governments” objected to Rhode Island’s laws, or New Jersey’s laws. The Asst. Solicitor General wasn’t sure that they did. So the Judge asked if it was only “Arazona’s” laws that they found offensive? I’m sure that the courts can see right through the Obama Administration’s outrageous attacks on the states. There have been many. But, one has to ask why no administration has secured the border, and has thrown so many Americans under the bus. Is it the $52 billion a year generated by illegal activities on the border? Is it the more than $22 billion mailed to the poor in Mexico supported by workers in the U.S.? We already know about the jobs, crops, maids, etc., but what would you say if I were to tell you that the drug cartels are now helping to protect us from terrorist. Over 400 Hezbolah have now been captured in Mexico trying to find their way into the U.S. I wonder how they were caught? How is it that an Iranian just happened to sit down with a CIA agent instead of a drug runner when soliciting for the assasination of the Saudi ambasador? All of my information comes from hearings found on C-Span 1, 2, and 3. Also, from recorded federal court arguements found on the net. Check them out, and search for things like, hearings about “Fast and Furious”, “National Security and our Southern Border”, etc. After a while you will know just what the T.V. news is all about.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)

Leave a Comment





The Loft Archives

  • August 2014
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • Reference Pages

  • About
  • Network-wide options by YD - Freelance Wordpress Developer