Tag Archives: illegal immigration

Obama Amnesty is Here | Judicial Watch

The Department of Homeland Security is systematically reviewing thousands of pending immigration cases and moving to dismiss those filed against suspected illegal immigrants who have no serious criminal records, according to several sources familiar with the efforts.

Culling the immigration court system dockets of noncriminals started in earnest in Houston about a month ago and has stunned local immigration attorneys, who have reported coming to court anticipating clients’ deportations only to learn that the government was dismissing their cases.

Read more via Obama Amnesty is Here | Judicial Watch.


FOXNews.com – Virginia Attorney General Rules Police Can Check Immigration Status

In a decision that could lay the groundwork for an Arizona-style immigration policy, Virginia’s attorney general said state law enforcement officers are allowed to check the immigration status of anyone “stopped or arrested.”

Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli issued the legal opinion Friday extending that authority to Virginia police in response to an inquiry over whether his state could mirror the policies passed into law in Arizona.

“It is my opinion that Virginia law enforcement officers, including conservation officers may, like Arizona police officers, inquire into the immigration status of persons stopped or arrested,” he wrote.

via FOXNews.com – Virginia Attorney General Rules Police Can Check Immigration Status.

CNSNews.com – Arizona Sheriff: ‘Our Own Government Has Become Our Enemy’

Babeu told CNSNews.com that rather than help law enforcement in Arizona stop the hundreds of thousands of people who come into the United States illegally, the federal government is targeting the state and its law enforcement personnel.

“What’s very troubling is the fact that at a time when we in law enforcement and our state need help from the federal government, instead of sending help they put up billboard-size signs warning our citizens to stay out of the desert in my county because of dangerous drug and human smuggling and weapons and bandits and all these other things and then, behind that, they drag us into court with the ACLU,” Babeu said.

The sheriff was referring to the law suits filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and the U.S. Department of Justice challenging the state’s new immigration law.

“So who has partnered with the ACLU?” Babeu said in a telephone interview with CNSNews.com. “It’s the president and (Attorney General) Eric Holder himself. And that’s simply outrageous.”

via CNSNews.com – Arizona Sheriff: ‘Our Own Government Has Become Our Enemy’.

44 – Palin: Obama lacks ‘the cojones’ to tackle immigration

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said Sunday that Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) has “the cojones” that President Obama “does not have” to take on illegal immigration. Appearing on “Fox News Sunday,” Palin blasted Obama for suing Arizona to block the state’s controversial new law without addressing “sanctuary cities” — in which local law enforcement are prohibited from asking people about their immigration status.

The former governor said the president and congressional Democrats “are all wet” on plans to allow the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to expire. “It’s idiotic to think about increasing taxes at a time like this,” Palin said. She added that her “palm isn’t large enough” to write all her notes down and she proceeded to read prepared notes about tax policy from a sheet of paper.

More on this via 44 – Palin: Obama lacks ‘the cojones’ to tackle immigration.

Ariz. files appeal as sheriff launches new sweep – Yahoo! News

We need more Sheriff’s Joes.  He’s not going to let a little thing like a Clinton appointed judge stand in the way of doing what’s needed.  It’s what the majority of Americans want.

PHOENIX – The showdown over Arizona’s immigration law played out in court and on Phoenix’s sun-splashed streets on Thursday, as the state sought to reinstate key parts of the measure and angry protesters chanted that they refused to “live in fear.” Dozens were arrested.

A federal judge’s decision a day earlier to block the strict law’s most controversial elements didn’t dampen the raging immigration debate.

The judge has been threatened. Protesters rallied in cities from Los Angeles to New York. The sheriff of the state’s most populous county vowed to continue targeting illegal immigrants. Lawmakers or candidates in as many as 18 states say they still want to push similar measures.

via Ariz. files appeal as sheriff launches new sweep – Yahoo! News.

The Radicalism of the Anti-Arizona Suit, Cont. – Rich Lowry – The Corner on National Review Online

The Radicalism of the Anti-Arizona Suit, Cont. – Rich Lowry – The Corner on National Review Online.

Friday, July 16, 2010

The Radicalism of the Anti-Arizona Suit, Cont. [Rich Lowry]

As everyone knows, Arizona passed a law that says, among other things, state law enforcement will inquire with the feds about the status of suspected illegal aliens. The Obama administration says that this law upsets the entire federal immigration scheme and is unconstitutional. I’d be curious to know how, then, the Obama administration explains this passage in the U.S. code, which obviously contemplates state and local governments finding out about illegals and making inquires about them with the feds—indeed, forbids anyone from preventing this exchange of information from taking place:

Sec. 1373. Communication between government agencies and the
Immigration and Naturalization Service

(a) In general
Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local
law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may
not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or
official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and
Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or
immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.
(b) Additional authority of government entities
Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local
law, no person or agency may prohibit, or in any way restrict, a
Federal, State, or local government entity from doing any of the
following with respect to information regarding the immigration
status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual:
(1) Sending such information to, or requesting or receiving
such information from, the Immigration and Naturalization
(2) Maintaining such information.
(3) Exchanging such information with any other Federal, State,
or local government entity.
(c) Obligation to respond to inquiries
The Immigration and Naturalization Service shall respond to an
inquiry by a Federal, State, or local government agency, seeking to
verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any
individual within the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose
authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or
status information.

The brief in support of Arizona by state attorneys general is particularly good on this point:

… First, Congress has provided that the executive branch has no discretion regarding whether to answer an inquiry from a State regarding the immigration status of a person in custody. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1373(c), Federal immigration authorities “shall respond” to an inquiry from a State agency seeking to verify the citizenship or immigration status of any individual within that State’s jurisdiction. In fact, the U.S. “may not” prohibit or restrict a State from seeking information regarding the citizenship or immigration status of any individual. 8 U.S.C. § 1373(a). Likewise, Federal, State, and local entities are barred from preventing their officials from exchanging information with Federal immigration office. 8 U.S.C. § 1373(b). Again, Congress’s use of the word “shall” in § 1373(c) demonstrates that the executive branch lacks any discretion whether to answer these inquiries. Nor does the statute limit in any way the number of inquiries a State might make. Therefore, the executive branch’s discretionary allocation of resources cannot justify its preemption argument. Indeed, this very argument was rejected by the Ninth Circuit in Chicanos Por La Causa v. Napolitano, 558 F.3d 856, 866-867 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that Arizona’s requirement to participate in E-Verify was not preempted because “while Congress made participation in E-Verify voluntary at the national level, that did not in and of itself indicate that Congress intended to prevent States from making participation mandatory”).

Second, Congress has stated that the Attorney General “shall” cooperate with the States to assure that information that would assist State law enforcement in arresting and detaining “an alien illegally present in the United States” under certain conditions is made available to such officials. 8 U.S.C. § 1252c(b). Congress’s use of the word “shall” indicates a mandatory, rather than discretionary, duty on part of the executive branch to assist State law enforcement in carrying out the State’s prerogative under 8 U.S.C. § 1252c(a). Because the Congress has not given the executive branch any discretion in determining whether to assist Arizona, its complaints about draining Federal resources cannot form the basis of a claim of preemption.

Finally, any claim that S.B. 1070 interferes with the Federal government’s allocation of resources must fail because Arizona does not, and cannot, place any obligation on the Federal government after an unlawful alien is reported. Under A.R.S. 11-1051(C), a law enforcement agency “shall” notify Federal immigration officials. Once that notification has been completed, it is ultimately up to the Federal government how to proceed. The Federal government could, for example, exercise its discretion by allowing the unlawful alien to remain in the United States in the interest of providing humanitarian relief. Or the Federal government could simply refuse to process any unlawful alien referred to them by Arizona officials, as suggested in May 2010 by the head of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency….

The Audacity of Obama on Immigration

By thomasjeffersonclubblog

The U.S. Justice Department filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Arizona’s immigration law and seeking an injunction to stop its implementation. Claiming that the law usurps federal authority, the administration believes it is reasonable to file the lawsuit in order to stop other such laws from being enacted across the country.

It would be reasonable for the federal government to actually enforce its own immigration laws instead of deliberately refusing to do so. This, too, would stop the need for individual state laws. Politics, ideology, and political correctness are overriding common sense at the federal level and many states, particularly Border States, are in danger because of it. What else can they do?

This administration, along with the progressive left, has made it known it favors amnesty for illegal immigrants. In fact, that is the only issue they are interested in under the guise of “comprehensive immigration reform”. Since amnesty does not appeal to the majority of people in the country, they are willing to ignore laws to force the issue, hoping the American people will follow out of desperation.

Obama’s refusal to enforce the law is creating another “crisis” to be manipulated for political purposes. He will then try to ram another ideologically laden bill through Congress as a solution. The real “crisis” this country seems to be facing is the Obama administration and the coming mid-term elections are the only recourse the public has to begin to end the rubber stamp majority rule that it holds.

Border security, illegal immigration, and true immigration reform are three issues that must be dealt with separately – and in that order. Combining them as one issue is a political ploy for the sole purpose of getting amnesty passed, thereby, gaining a large Democrat voting block. The audacity of Obama’s politics is causing chaos and danger throughout the country and it must be stopped.

David J. Hentosh

Krauthammer’s Take – NRO Staff – The Corner on National Review Online

Monday, April 26, 2010

Krauthammer’s Take [NRO Staff]

On the Arizona immigration law as a response to increased kidnappings, cross-border killings, and drug-trafficking:

And the reason is that the feds have not done what they are required to do to secure the border. When Napolitano says it’s the best level of security ever — did you hear in that sound bite she said we are throwing the most resources at it?

It’s a typical liberal assessing the policy on the amount of stuff on the inputs into it, rather than on the results and the output. Output is kidnappings, murder, mayhem, fear at the border.

When the president says as he said today that the reason all this is happening is because the federal government has not acted, he’s right about that. But he’s completely wrong in implying, as he does, that a solution is what he’s going to advocate, which is amnesty. Amnesty is exactly the wrong answer. . . .

What the feds ought to do is not amnesty, [but] secure the border. And here, I cannot understand — I have never heard a coherent argument against a fence across the border. On the parts in which a fence already exists, there has been a huge decrease in illegal immigration.

Of course there’s always going to be a person or two who gets across. But a fence all across the border would turn a river of illegal immigrants into a trickle, and that would change the whole country.

via Krauthammer’s Take – NRO Staff – The Corner on National Review Online.