“The Arizona law is in compliance with federal law,” said Rosemary Jenks, director of government relations at Numbers USA. “The Justice Department should stay out of it. They should be encouraging Arizona to be enforcing the laws. Secondly, they should be enforcing federal immigration law, which means challenging cities and states that have sanctuary policies.”
The Justice Department sees it differently, saying Arizona is unconstitutionally interfering with the federal government’s role in immigration control.
“There is a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law,” Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said.
So if you want to ignore the Federal law and set up a Sanctuary City that’s ok with us. Do something else and you’re “interfering” with our power.
The Empire has spoken! :)
If, in fact, any entity is actively “interfering” with the enforcement of federal immigration laws, it is these cities, which refuse cooperation with federal enforcement authorities. What Schmaler is doing, and what many legal experts claim, is willfully misrepresenting both the law in question and the role adopted by sanctuary cities.
If there is a “big difference” to be had here it is the sanctuary city is actively refusing to enforce the law while Arizona is actively attempting to enforce it.
And which is it our chief law enforcement agency decides to sue? Of course, the entity trying to enforce our laws…
Just as a side Note, our cough-cough “esteemed” ex-gov Janet was on Greta Van Sustreen last night from Laredo, TX and asked about SB1070 and “racial profiling” and she dropped back and punted!
She refused to answer the question directly and even used Obama’s “misquided” and toted how much great stuff she has done and will be doing.
It was a real barf fest. Not that I excepted anything less from her. When she was Governor she only wanted to look tough on the border issue because of re-election campaign in 2006 and it was a poke in the eye of a Republican President.
But soon enough she bailed on the state just as everything went to hell. She drove it into the iceberg and then stole the life raft for herself.
Of course, ignored in all of this is the state of Rhode Island which has, for years, essentially had and enforced a state law that is almost a mirror of the Arizona law.
But since suing a Northeastern Liberal state not on the border which doesn’t have the vote potential is not politically advantageous we’ll just ignore it. They aren’t a big enough score.
We want spectacle. We want intimidation. We want FEAR! :)
The Empire has Spoken!
They have, in a very short time, turned the Department of Justice into the Department of Agendas, injecting an agenda driven politics into an area where it should never, ever be allowed. The result is a perversion of law and the breaking of a centuries old promise in our social contract.(examiner)
But if the end justifies the means, go for it! :)
And you have groups and the Attorney General just waiting for any whiff or any atom of any angstrom of “racial profiling” at 12:01am July 29th.
The attorney general, speaking at the Aspen Ideas Festival last week in an interview aired on CBS on Sunday, said the pre-emption argument was the stronger attack against the law. But he said if the law does go into effect despite the suit, the Justice Department will watch and see whether profiling is taking place.
“If that was the case, we would have the tools, and we would bring suit on that basis,” he said.
So do I think that by 12:02am on July 29th there will be a lawsuit alledging “racial profiling”?
But I’m a cynic of the highest order.
I think that the ACLU, LA Raza, and other groups will try there darnedest to set-up the police and then scream “racial profiling” even if it doesn’t exist. And they will do it each and every day.
Because, that’s what liberals do.
They lawyer you to death.
They beat you into submission with Lawyers.
That’s why we so many problems caused by lawyers.
Former U.S. Attorney General and Heritage Distinguished Fellow Edwin Meese addressed overcriminalization in his introduction to “One Nation Under Arrest.” Meese writes:
America is in the throes of overcriminalization: We are making and enforcing far too many criminal laws that create traps for the innocent, but unwary, and that threaten to make criminals out of those who are doing their best to be respectable, law-abiding citizens
Last night on Fox Business, reporter John Stossel had a program about this problem:
The show focuses on the destruction that over-criminalization caused to average Americans Krister Evertson and George and Kathy Norris.
Krister, an Eagle Scout with no criminal record – not even a single traffic ticket, was initially arrested by four FBI agents wearing black SWAT gear and pointing automatic rifles at him because he didn’t know that obscure federal regulations required him to put a certain sticker on his otherwise lawful UPS package. After spending 21 months in an Oregon federal prison, Krister today lives by himself in a ramshackle aluminum trailer sitting on the fenced-in grounds of a construction company’s equipment yard. Because he is on parole, he is not allowed even to move to Alaska – where he was arrested – to live with his 80-year-old mother whom he used to care for.
George Norris, a 63-year-old retiree with diabetes and heart problems, had no criminal record the day armed agents with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (?!) ransacked his house looking for evidence that he had imported endangered orchids for his home-based business. Although the feds found no evidence of illegal orchids, Norris spent 17 months in prison – including over 10 weeks in solitary confinement – because a small percentage of his paperwork was inaccurate.
And he went to prison because after spending his entire life savings, $100,000, he was advised to plead guilty so he could be sentenced to probation. Instead, he spent 17 months in a Federal Prison!
Imagine: A Gang member with tatooes on his eyeballs comes up to him, “whatcha in for?”
“I sold legal orchids without the proper paperwork”
“Man, you’re one dangerous dude!” :)
And there’s the food police, you know, the people who want to ban salt, fat, and pop, etc. because they are bad for you and you’re too incompetent to be responsible for yourself.
The Video: http://overcriminalized.com/Video.aspx
Also: “The Food Police” – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZZgLmmtwRk
There shall be no cupcakes. No chocolate cake and no carrot cake. According to New York City’s latest regulations, not even zucchini bread makes the cut.
In an effort to limit how much sugar and fat students put in their bellies at school, the Education Department has effectively banned most bake sales, the lucrative if not quite healthy fund-raising tool for generations of teams and clubs.
The change is part of a new wellness policy that also limits what can be sold in vending machines and student-run stores, which use profits to help finance activities like pep rallies and proms.
Did you know that Girl Scouts are evil perveyers of obese-creating cookies??
They are pushers!
They are evil crack dealers of fat!!
Warning Labels on Fast Food. A Skull and Cross Bones on your Big Mac perhaps?
A HazMat sticker on that Little Debbie Snack Cake?
A Heart attack sign on that plate of Nachos?
If you refuse to do what is right, then the government will be forced to come in and make you do it.
It’s in your best interest.
All those who believe they are born with free choice, need to take a few classes in marketing psychology to understand how limited their scope of personal freedom really is in today’s America. In fact, our free choice is really the freedom to choose between Pepsi and Coke, not freedom to choose a healthy lifestyle. There are too many psychological cues pushing the average Joe and Jane towards obesity – mostly cheap unhealthy fare available anywhere anytime. (fooducate blog)
Part of being free is being free to make bad choices, to take risks, and to bear the consequences. Part of being free is that you, personally, may decide what you eat or drink. It’s a liberty so elementary that our founders never even imagined that it would need protection, but today, it does.
To be sure, there are many costs associated with socialized health care, and some of the choices we make will certainly raise those costs. That’s one big reason why the nanny state is suddenly in the food business. But if we absolutely must have socialized health care — a point I don’t for a moment concede — then I’d prefer to pay a little bit extra and keep all my other liberties, thanks.(Cato Institute)
But liberals and their pit bull lawyers never give up that easily.
They are, after all, vastly superior in every way to you. You just don’t know it. And if you want disagree, well, meet Mr and Mrs Lawsuit!
San Francisco is banning pop in vending machines, but not Starbucks, as bad for you.
Much like the Financial Reform that just passed that heaps tons of regulations on the private sector, but says absolutely nothing about federally-owned Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the real problem that is still out there.
But it make it look like they are “doing something” and it’s for “your own good”.
And if you want to complain that the government is not doing it’s job, and you want to do it or help them do it, shut up and sit down, they know better.
We’ll sue you for trying to do our job too.
So if you step on a federal law land mine or are arrested by the food police, it’s for your own good, citizen.
Want to take responsibility for yourself, NOT ALLOWED.
That’s the government’s job.
We are are from the government and we are here to protect your from yourself!
Bow to your Masters or else!
Rejoice Citizen. :)