Right Wing Reality & The Us Constitution

[Procrustes Stretched]

What is it that makes crazy right wingers re-frame things like this, "There is no Constitutional authority that the Fed has authority over illegal immigration." as if they are hiding what they are really saying?

Most rational people know the federal government is in charge of immigration policy and law.

here is an opinion people may want to look at and consider...

Have you ever heard someone say, "That's unconstitutional!" or "That's my constitutional right!" and wondered if they were right? You might be surprised how often people get it wrong.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, in Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate immigration (see, for example, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 [1976]). It would not make sense to allow Congress to pass laws to determine how an immigrant becomes a naturalized resident if the Congress cannot determine how that immigrant can come into the country in the first place.

Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

 

[Cecilie1200]

Is it amusing to anyone else to hear the same group of people who were on here staunchly defending the Constitutionality of Obamacare now attacking SB 1070 - or anything else, for that matter - as Unconstitutional?

 

[Oddball]

Socialist dirtbags don't give a hoot in hell about the Constitution, until one of its few vagaries give them the ever-so-conveeeenient canard to float.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Socialist dirtbags don't give a hoot in hell about the Constitution, until one of its few vagaries give them the ever-so-conveeeenient canard to float.

Speak English -- and show some ID.

 

[American Horse]

A state passing a law concurring with a federal law but which is less stringent than the federal law does not usurp the federal law. States have always been enabled to enforce federal law because, one supposes, there are often not enough federal law enforcers.

A reliance by a state's citizens on a law and then a lack of enforcement by the Feds would have the effect of denying equal justice for the citizens of the state if a need for the enforcement of that or any law (robbery of a federal bank for instance) is not fulfilled by the Feds resulting in harm to the citizens because of that lack of enforcement.

In the Arizona case, the conditions of its application were purposely made more observant of citizens rights than the fedral version of the corresponding law. The reason for that difference was to avoid perceptions that the state was usurping federal prequisites. Arguments against it on constitutional grounds along with failure to enforce shows an intent to preclude any enforcement of immigration law.

If it was common knowledge that bank robbers were not pursued by the FBI in a particular state, that lack of "pursuit" would create a magnetic effect therein, for robbers of federal banks with the resultant harm to the state's citizens, creating for them a state of inequality under the law. This is essentially what has happened in Arizona.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A state passing a law concurring with a federal law but which is less stringent than the federal law does not usurp the federal law. States have always been enabled to enforce federal law because, one supposes, there are often not enough federal law enforcers.

A reliance by a state's citizens on a law and then a lack of enforcement by the Feds would have the effect of denying equal justice for the citizens of the state if a need for the enforcement of that or any law (robbery of a federal bank for instance) is not fulfilled by the Feds resulting in harm to the citizens because of that lack of enforcement.

In the Arizona case, the conditions of its application were purposely made more observant of citizens rights than the fedral version of the corresponding law. The reason for that difference was to avoid perceptions that the state was usurping federal prequisites. Arguments against it on constitutional grounds along with failure to enforce shows an intent to preclude any enforcement of immigration law.

If it was common knowledge that bank robbers are not pursued by the FBI in a particular state, that lack of "pursuit" would create a magnetic effect therein, for robbers of federal banks with the resultant harm to the state's citizens, creating for them a state of inequality under the law. This is essentially what has happened in Arizona.

And besides, where is it written that just because there is a law against something federally, there can't ALSO be state laws against it? It's not like it's a jurisdictional conflict, since Arizona hasn't suggested setting up its own ICE to process and deport people. Our law enforcement officers have been arresting illegals and turning them over to Immigration for a long time. The only difference is that NOW they're allowed to look a little more closely at people to find out if they're illegal.

 

[rdean]

Socialist dirtbags don't give a hoot in hell about the Constitution, until one of its few vagaries give them the ever-so-conveeeenient canard to float.

So much confidence. So little intellect. How do you do it? Never mind. It was a rhetorical question.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

A state passing a law concurring with a federal law but which is less stringent than the federal law does not usurp the federal law. States have always been enabled to enforce federal law because, one supposes, there are often not enough federal law enforcers.

A reliance by a state's citizens on a law and then a lack of enforcement by the Feds would have the effect of denying equal justice for the citizens of the state if a need for the enforcement of that or any law (robbery of a federal bank for instance) is not fulfilled by the Feds resulting in harm to the citizens because of that lack of enforcement.

In the Arizona case, the conditions of its application were purposely made more observant of citizens rights than the fedral version of the corresponding law. The reason for that difference was to avoid perceptions that the state was usurping federal prequisites. Arguments against it on constitutional grounds along with failure to enforce shows an intent to preclude any enforcement of immigration law.

If it was common knowledge that bank robbers are not pursued by the FBI in a particular state, that lack of "pursuit" would create a magnetic effect therein, for robbers of federal banks with the resultant harm to the state's citizens, creating for them a state of inequality under the law. This is essentially what has happened in Arizona.

And besides, where is it written that just because there is a law against something federally, there can't ALSO be state laws against it? It's not like it's a jurisdictional conflict, since Arizona hasn't suggested setting up its own ICE to process and deport people. Our law enforcement officers have been arresting illegals and turning them over to Immigration for a long time. The only difference is that NOW they're allowed to look a little more closely at people to find out if they're illegal.

AZ has decided to make the local police their own ICE. don't you get it?


that is NOT the only difference. why are people like you so eager to give up freedoms?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Socialist dirtbags don't give a hoot in hell about the Constitution, until one of its few vagaries give them the ever-so-conveeeenient canard to float.

So much confidence. So little intellect. How do you do it? Never mind. It was a rhetorical question.

bravo. bravo bravo

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

A state passing a law concurring with a federal law but which is less stringent than the federal law does not usurp the federal law. States have always been enabled to enforce federal law because, one supposes, there are often not enough federal law enforcers.

A reliance by a state's citizens on a law and then a lack of enforcement by the Feds would have the effect of denying equal justice for the citizens of the state if a need for the enforcement of that or any law (robbery of a federal bank for instance) is not fulfilled by the Feds resulting in harm to the citizens because of that lack of enforcement.

In the Arizona case, the conditions of its application were purposely made more observant of citizens rights than the fedral version of the corresponding law. The reason for that difference was to avoid perceptions that the state was usurping federal prequisites. Arguments against it on constitutional grounds along with failure to enforce shows an intent to preclude any enforcement of immigration law.

If it was common knowledge that bank robbers were not pursued by the FBI in a particular state, that lack of "pursuit" would create a magnetic effect therein, for robbers of federal banks with the resultant harm to the state's citizens, creating for them a state of inequality under the law. This is essentially what has happened in Arizona.

Your analogies are weird.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A state passing a law concurring with a federal law but which is less stringent than the federal law does not usurp the federal law. States have always been enabled to enforce federal law because, one supposes, there are often not enough federal law enforcers.

A reliance by a state's citizens on a law and then a lack of enforcement by the Feds would have the effect of denying equal justice for the citizens of the state if a need for the enforcement of that or any law (robbery of a federal bank for instance) is not fulfilled by the Feds resulting in harm to the citizens because of that lack of enforcement.

In the Arizona case, the conditions of its application were purposely made more observant of citizens rights than the fedral version of the corresponding law. The reason for that difference was to avoid perceptions that the state was usurping federal prequisites. Arguments against it on constitutional grounds along with failure to enforce shows an intent to preclude any enforcement of immigration law.

If it was common knowledge that bank robbers are not pursued by the FBI in a particular state, that lack of "pursuit" would create a magnetic effect therein, for robbers of federal banks with the resultant harm to the state's citizens, creating for them a state of inequality under the law. This is essentially what has happened in Arizona.

And besides, where is it written that just because there is a law against something federally, there can't ALSO be state laws against it? It's not like it's a jurisdictional conflict, since Arizona hasn't suggested setting up its own ICE to process and deport people. Our law enforcement officers have been arresting illegals and turning them over to Immigration for a long time. The only difference is that NOW they're allowed to look a little more closely at people to find out if they're illegal.

AZ has decided to make the local police their own ICE. don't you get it?


that is NOT the only difference. why are people like you so eager to give up freedoms?

No, dumbfuck, they haven't. Don't YOU get it? No one's giving up any freedoms, except perhaps the illegals giving up the freedom to wander in and out of our country with impunity.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

And besides, where is it written that just because there is a law against something federally, there can't ALSO be state laws against it? It's not like it's a jurisdictional conflict, since Arizona hasn't suggested setting up its own ICE to process and deport people. Our law enforcement officers have been arresting illegals and turning them over to Immigration for a long time. The only difference is that NOW they're allowed to look a little more closely at people to find out if they're illegal.

AZ has decided to make the local police their own ICE. don't you get it?


that is NOT the only difference. why are people like you so eager to give up freedoms?

No, dumbfuck, they haven't. Don't YOU get it? No one's giving up any freedoms, except perhaps the illegals giving up the freedom to wander in and out of our country with impunity.

The illegals? WTF do you live?

http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#immigration

 

[Cecilie1200]

AZ has decided to make the local police their own ICE. don't you get it?


that is NOT the only difference. why are people like you so eager to give up freedoms?

No, dumbfuck, they haven't. Don't YOU get it? No one's giving up any freedoms, except perhaps the illegals giving up the freedom to wander in and out of our country with impunity.

The illegals? WTF do you live?

Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

I live in Tucson, about an hour from the Mexican border. How about you?

And while I realize you think your link makes some huge, devastating point in your favor, it really, really doesn't. Only point it makes is that you don't know what you're talking about, and we already knew that.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

No, dumbfuck, they haven't. Don't YOU get it? No one's giving up any freedoms, except perhaps the illegals giving up the freedom to wander in and out of our country with impunity.

The illegals? WTF do you live?

Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

I live in Tucson, about an hour from the Mexican border. How about you?

And while I realize you think your link makes some huge, devastating point in your favor, it really, really doesn't. Only point it makes is that you don't know what you're talking about, and we already knew that.

Little MexiCali -- LA County.

naw, we'll see. It's all about the upcoming elections...keeping people like you all riled up.

The courts will decide if AZ is acting Constitutionally.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The illegals? WTF do you live?

Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

I live in Tucson, about an hour from the Mexican border. How about you?

And while I realize you think your link makes some huge, devastating point in your favor, it really, really doesn't. Only point it makes is that you don't know what you're talking about, and we already knew that.

Little MexiCali -- LA County.

naw, we'll see. It's all about the upcoming elections...keeping people like you all riled up.

The courts will decide if AZ is acting Constitutionally.

1) It's NOT about elections, which is exactly why fucktards like you are so very, VERY unpopular on this issue. Your inability to care about the country over your own personal partisan political power does not speak well for you.

2) LA County impresses me not at all. It's MY border that's got the biggest flood of illegals, not yours . . . but hey, if you think that's no big deal, we'll be happy to funnel 'em your way. It's just about elections, anyway, right?

3) I doubt anyone is shocked that you're incapable of formulating any sort of concept of "Constitutional" without a bunch of oligarchs in black dresses to do your thinking for you. But since that's the case and you're now admitting it, why don't you and your buddies give it a fucking rest carping about Constitutionality on every other subject, too?

 

[LilOlLady]

The right for Arizona law to assist federal law, given to them by federal law has always been enforced. Operation Wetback is one of those instance when racial profiling was done. Arizona law only assist Federal imigration law.
We only have 6,000 ICE agents to deal with 30 million illegal aliens and they need all the help they can get from state and local officials. That is why we have 30 million in this country. Feds were not doing their jobs, so Arizona decided to offer more help.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The right for Arizona law to assist federal law, given to them by federal law has always been enforced. Operation Wetback is one of those instance when racial profiling was done. Arizona law only assist Federal imigration law.
We only have 6,000 ICE agents to deal with 30 million illegal aliens and they need all the help they can get from state and local officials. That is why we have 30 million in this country. Feds were not doing their jobs, so Arizona decided to offer more help.

no thank you

 

[SW2SILVER]

The NRA and the pro- illegal alien groups have a lot in common, they love to moralize and tell the rest of us what is good for us, and then they use the Constitution (and hell of allot of bullshit) like some kind of shield from rationality. Left or right, conservative or liberal, they are wingnuts, all right.

 

[SW2SILVER]

Take out the NRA, substitute the anti-evolutionists, or anti abortionist. All those folks that supported drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico . The same jerks that warned us against WMD’s in Iraq, besides the fact they couldn’t find any. WOW, I am under awed. Mexican illegal aliens are a threat to me, personally, and I don’t think I am a anomaly, either. I think I am closer to the norm. We fear people that tell us to ignore our own common sense.