Top Official Says Feds May Not Process Illegals Referred From Arizona

[Zeebadee]

What specific part of the federal oath requires such cooperation?

Take your choice:

"I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

"I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter"

Incorrect. Federal officials can decide if state laws are good or bad for the federal government and tailor cooperation accordingly. Eisenhower didn't cooperate with southern segregation laws. And Obama need not cooperate with a state that chooses to take federal immigration laws into their own hands. In fact Obama has a duty to the nation at large to guarantee that any such state laws do not violate the federally mandated civil rights of American citizens or anyone else.

Since there were no federal segregation laws, the southern states were acting on their own. The Arizona law mirrors a federal one, so what you're claiming is that Obama doesn't need to enforce federal laws. Arizona has made it clear that it's law was passed because the federal government has refused to enforce it's own.

Arizona has power over Arizona, not federal laws and jurisdictions. If the teabaggers don't like it, they can go pound sand.

We are supposed to be a nation of laws. People that condone federal officials using their personal beliefs to decide which laws to enforce can also go pound sand.

[The Decider]

Take your choice:

"I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

"I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter"

By making sure that Arizona teabaggers don't violate civil rights, the federal officials are upholding those oaths.

Since there were no federal segregation laws, the southern states were acting on their own. The Arizona law mirrors a federal one, so what you're claiming is that Obama doesn't need to enforce federal laws. Arizona has made it clear that it's law was passed because the federal government has refused to enforce it's own.

Obama needs to enforce all laws, including those governing civil rights in rogue states like Arizona.

We are supposed to be a nation of laws. People that condone federal officials using their personal beliefs to decide which laws to enforce can also go pound sand.

It's not "personal beliefs" but federal law that motivates this issue---federal law in the widest sense, not just Arizona teabagger interpretations. And since Arizona teabaggers have no say in federal civil rights enforcement, the sand pounded will be theirs.

[Sonart]

.

Everyone? Really?

Well, except for Tea Partiers, Militia members and the voice of the Right, FAUX News.


.

[lsbskins1]

Man, we have some law and order freaks here when it comes to obeying immigration law. No picking and choosing what to enforce. The oath demands that. huh? Just who do you think you will be shooting at when they come to pry the weapon from your cold, dead fingers? People who take the exact same oath and are enforcing law under code that is just as valid from the "passed and signed" perspective. All those zoning laws that say you can't do this or that with your private property, the people who enforce those laws take that same ironclad oath you have so much respect for. All those useless business regulations carry the same force of law and the people who enforce those laws take the same oath. Some of you guys really make me laugh.

[Zeebadee]

No picking and choosing what to enforce.

Well, the idea that you really want unelected officials to be able to pick and choose which laws to enforce makes me laugh too. I doubt that you'd be happy with that kind of situation for very long.

[lsbskins1]

Well, the idea that you really want unelected officials to be able to pick and choose which laws to enforce makes me laugh too. I doubt that you'd be happy with that kind of situation for very long.

I'm not the one who constantly suggests that federal officials who enforce guns laws are overstepping their authority, now am I?

But the plain and simple truth is that every sheriff, every patrol officer, every prosecutor in the US is tasked daily with allocating time and resources based on judgment calls and interpretation of code. The oath says "to the best of my ability" for a reason. Throw into the pot the other plain assed fact that Federal Law is controlling in immigration matters, and the oath is to the Constitution, not Arizona law, and the position of those who want strict enforcement and respect in this case, but want to be able to be free, themselves, to ignore the same strict interpretation when it comes to laws they personally disagree with and you have a big, fat hypocritical mess of a rationalization.

[armzwdopn]

What about this law so incenses California governmental entities?

Its pandering to our fastest growing demographic: latinos from the Western Hemiphere.

[Zeebadee]

The oath says "to the best of my ability" for a reason.

But that's not what this official is implying, is it? He states his agency "will not necessarily process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona authorities" because, "I don't think the Arizona law, or laws like it, are the solution". That implies he's using his personal opinion in enforcing the law.

.... the position of those who want strict enforcement and respect in this case....

Strict enforcement is one thing, virtual non-enforcement is another. Does anyone seriously believe that if the feds were enforcing our existing immigration laws, Arizona would have felt the need to pass their own??

[Sonart]

.

Its pandering to our fastest growing demographic: latinos from the Western Hemiphere.

Yeah, yeah... what some call pandering, others call listening to the will of The People.


.

[lsbskins1]

But that's not what this official is implying, is it? He states his agency "will not necessarily process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona authorities" because, "I don't think the Arizona law, or laws like it, are the solution". That implies he's using his personal opinion in enforcing the law.

It means he is most likely working with limited resources and he considers it more important to prosecute others first. Like ones who have broken some law other than an immigration law and pose a threat to the community in a more pressing way.

Strict enforcement is one thing, virtual non-enforcement is another. Does anyone seriously believe that if the feds were enforcing our existing immigration laws, Arizona would have felt the need to pass their own??

The real question you need to ask yourself is who keeps hiring the people who cross the boarder. You want to target the elusive, poor people just trying to get by when the more reasonable targets are the fixed, US businesses that avoid either the taxes they would have to pay above board employees or who simply want to undercut the US wage market. There would be no reason for the mass crossings if greedy US businesses were not breaking the laws of their own, home country. I think they are the more culpable wrong-doers in this situation. Jail or fine the shit out of the ones providing the incentive and you could end the problem in a pretty short time. If we did that, Mexico would find out pretty quick that they better do something to spread their own wealth more effectively because there would be no place to siphon off their unemployed. Better for us, better for the average Mexican citizen. But, that makes too much sense, I suppose.

[armzwdopn]

Yeah, yeah... what some call pandering, others call listening to the will of The People.

the leftist 'people' in congress

[Thanatos]

Its pandering to our fastest growing demographic: latinos from the Western Hemiphere.

I have a question about what's going on in my head. Why am I so damn pissed off? I mean, I am really annoyed right now and I'm not even Latino. I'm white, mostly Dutch with a hint of Cherokee.

I'll tell you why I'm mad. I will calm down when I don't think this is about race. The rest is, well, bullshit that you only pretend to believe in because it's a means to an end.

Convince me that you really don't care about race and that I'm in error when I write off your complaints that a government official expressed dissent as crocodile tears. I know that's a big amorphous task.