68% of the registered voters of Georgia want what Barack Obama wants to make unconstitutional. The gap between the elites and masses on immigration is the widest gap of any political issue in the United States. The elites keep fighting for what they want in spite of this.
The poll commissioned by the Georgia Newspaper Partnership asked registered voters across the state whether they would support giving "state and local law enforcement the power to ask people already stopped for possible violations of the law to show proof they are in the country legally and then arrest those that could not provide such proof."
A large majority -- 68 percent -- said they would support doing so, while 24 percent said they would not. The rest were undecided.
Local police could round up the vast bulk of the illegal aliens in a year or two if alls states passed laws like Arizona's and if the feds would take illegals from local police and deport them. Immigration law is enforceable. It just takes political will to enforce the law.
Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder recently sued the state of Arizona for having the temerity to try to enforce federal immigration laws. The elites of Democratic Party are keen to import as many future poor and therefore Democratic voters as possible. When state and local governments try to enforce the federal immigration laws this is poses an obstacle to their plans. Well, on other issues Obama is very keen for states to enforce federal law and to make policy on the same topics as the US government makes policy.
Just this past April, the Solicitor General submitted a vigorous anti-preemption amicus brief in the Supreme Court in Williamson v. Mazda Motor of America. The case requires the high court to determine whether the motor vehicle safety standards established by the federal government effectively preempt a products liability claim under state tort law. The Court of Appeals of California would not let the case proceed, ruling that the plaintiffs’ claims were preempted under federal law. The government’s brief argued strongly against preemption, urging the Supreme Court to grant discretionary review in order to overturn the finding of preemption. Among other things, the government argued that the mere fact that auto manufacturers must comply with federal law when installing seat belts does not preempt a state law tort action. Simply put, the Solicitor General “did not agree” with the “broader theory of implied preemption,” that some lower courts have advanced. The government’s anti-preemption brief has been described as “blistering” by some commentators.
But that’s not all. On May 20, 2009, President Obama issued a sweeping Presidential Memorandum on Preemption, which was delivered to all executive department and agency heads. Seeking to curtail the broad invocation of federal preemption, the memo expresses alarm that “executive departments and agencies have sometimes announced that their regulations preempt State law, including state common law, without explicit preemption by the Congress.” Most relevant to the Arizona litigation, the memo explicitly advances the view that “State law and national law often operate concurrently to provide independent safeguards for the public.” The memo goes on to say that preemption of state law “should be undertaken only with full consideration of the legitimate prerogatives of the States and with a sufficient legal basis for preemption.” Recognizing that the states serve as “laboratories of democracy” and often are the most aggressive defenders of public health and safety, President Obama advocated a presumption against preemption unless a contrary intention is expressly contained in the relevant federal statute.
Our enemy in the White House thinks the US Constitution should mean whatever he wants it to mean on a case by case basis.
The Justice Department filed suit Tuesday against Arizona, charging that the state's new immigration law is unconstitutional and requesting a preliminary injunction to stop the legislation from taking effect.
Obama does not want immigration law enforced.
Curiously, the federal government has produced a huge mountain of laws over the last 40 years in areas that were historically the prerogative of states. Yet Obama or most of the Left don't seem to think they should be restrained by the constitution as they violate the constitution. They just appoint judges who will disregard the letter of the law.
The lawsuit says the law illegally intrudes on federal prerogatives, invoking as its main argument the legal doctrine of "preemption," which is based on the Constitution's supremacy clause and says that federal law trumps state statutes. The Justice Department argues that enforcing immigration laws is a federal responsibility and says an injunction is needed to prevent "irreparable harm" to the United States.
What form does this "irreparable harm" take? Illegal immigrants will be deported. Some people who would otherwise enter the country illegally will decide not to break US law. How does this constitute "irreparable harm"? Arizona's law is designed to empower local police to enforce federal law. It isn't designed to empower local police to undermine federal law. Rather, enforcement of the Arizona law will undermine federal undermining of federal law.
Look at federal drug law. Imagine that police stopped busting heroin dealers. The federal government would throw a conniption. The federal government has no problem with local enforcement of federal law when the federal government really wants the law enforced.
Where does it say in the constitution that the states can't enforce immigration law? Where does it say that states can't enforce federal laws?
"The Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Barack finds another way to oppose local immigration law enforcement. Why does he do this? Because local police are best positioned to enforce immigration law. There are far more police and they come into contact with large cross sections of their communities. They've got excellent sources of information and lots of contacts. So naturally opposing their ability to enforce immigration laws is a logical position for some politician to take if they want to let in millions of illegal aliens.
The Obama administration has tapped an outspoken critic of immigration enforcement on the local level to oversee and promote partnerships between federal and local officials.
Harold Hurtt, a former police chief in Houston and Phoenix, has been hired as the director for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Office of State and Local Coordination. Starting July 6, Hurtt will supervise outreach and communication between ICE, local law enforcement agencies, tribal leaders and representatives from non-governmental organizations.
As a police chief Hurtt opposed having police check the immigration status of local residents. So basically Obama's appointment of Hurtt is a big "fuck you" to the state of Arizona and to all the local police forces around the country that want to enforce immigration law. Here's the destination of his policies.
This move is consistent with the rumors that Obama will move to grant de facto amnesty to existing illegal immigrants.
Time to tell your elected representatives that you favor local immigration law enforcement and oppose immigration amnesty by executive fiat.
Our overlords on Wall Street, K Street, in Congress, and the White House want us to accept a massive damaging demographic transformation of society. But a sheriff in Florida and local police are finding that the enforcement of laws against identity theft provide them with tools to enforce immigration laws.
Sheriff Wendell Hall of Santa Rosa County, who led the effort, said the arrests were for violations of state identity theft laws. But he also seemed proud to have found a way around rules allowing only the federal government to enforce immigration laws. In his office, the sheriff displayed a framed editorial cartoon that showed Daniel Boone admiring his arrest of at least 27 illegal workers.
His approach is increasingly common. Last month, 260 illegal immigrants in Iowa were sentenced to five months in prison for violations of federal identity theft laws.
At the same time, in the last year, local police departments from coast to coast have rounded up hundreds of immigrants for nonviolent, often minor, crimes, like fishing without a license in Georgia, with the end result being deportation.
What does it say that the parts of government close to the people are going in one direction while our elites go in another?
The states are where the action is in policy changes to increase law enforcement against illegal immigrants.
State lawmakers, in response to Congressional inaction on immigration law, are giving local authorities a wider berth. In 2007, 1,562 bills related to illegal immigration were introduced nationwide and 240 were enacted in 46 states, triple the number that passed in 2006, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. A new law in Mississippi makes it a felony for an illegal immigrant to hold a job. In Oklahoma, sheltering or transporting illegal immigrants is also a felony.
Will President Barack Obama try to undermine local law enforcement? Or will grassroots lobbying efforts of Congress block attempts to pass amnesties and foreign worker programs?
Oklahoma Governor Brad Henry, a Democrat, very unenthusiastically signed into law legislation that makes Oklahoma's laws against illegal immigrants the toughest in the nation. Henry had no choice because the law passed by veto-proof margins.
State lawmakers praised Henry’s action. Supporters had urged Henry to sign the measure into law since it received final passage in a bipartisan 84-14 vote by the state House last week. The bill was approved 41-6 by the Senate last month.
“This important new immigration reform ensures we’re upholding the rule of law in Oklahoma. Our citizens deserve nothing less,” said House Speaker Lance Cargill, R-Harrah.
The measure’s author, Rep. Randy Terrill, R-Moore, credited public outcry at the federal government’s inability to address illegal immigration for his measure’s success.
“I’m glad the governor received the message,” Terrill said. “It puts Oklahoma effectively at the forefront in the state-level immigration reform movement.”
State and local governments, being closer to the people, continue to set examples to the federal government about how illegal immigration can be cut back via tough laws and enforcement of existing laws. The elites in Washington DC disagree with the masses and have sabotaged immigration law enforcement at the federal level for many years. Popular anger at federal immigration policy is finding an outlet through state and local level law and policy.
According to Terrill, author of HB 1804, the bill focuses on four main points.
It contains provisions to ensure taxpayer-supported benefits are made available to American citizens and legal immigrants only.
It also restricts access by illegal aliens to driver’s licenses and ID cards and allows state and local law enforcement the power to enforce federal immigration law.
It also provides for severe penalties for employers who employ illegal immigrants.
A group called the League of United Latin American Citizens plan to file suit to stop the enforcement of this law. They do not think we the citizens have a right to stop people from entering the United States. Think about that.
In another example of popular will fighting against elite will the people of a town in Texas have enacted a regulation aimed against illegal aliens. Against opposition of mayor Bob Phelps, the voters of Farmers Branch Texas voted for a regulation that prevents illegal aliens from renting apartments.
FARMERS BRANCH, Texas -- Farmers Branch residents on Saturday became the first in the nation to pass a regulation aimed at preventing illegal immigrants from renting apartments.
Voters in the Dallas suburb approved the measure, which requires apartment managers to verify that potential renters are U.S. citizens or legal immigrants.
Meanwhile, in Washington DC the elites are negotiating with each other behind closed doors on how to enact legislation that will grant amnesty to all the illegal aliens.
As we all know by now, El Presidente Jorge W. Bush loves Mexican immigrants and can't get enough of them. However, the New York Times reports on signs that down in the Lone Star state other Texans have clearly had their fill and don't want any more. A the state and local level in Texas popular anger about illegal immigration drives demands for policy changes.
HOUSTON, Nov. 15 — In a sign of rising passions over immigration issues, Texas lawmakers prepared for the 2007 session this week by filing a flurry of bills that would deny public assistance and other benefits to the children of illegal immigrants, tax money transfers to Mexico and the rest of Latin America and sue the federal government for the costs of state border control.
At the same time, a Dallas suburb, Farmers Branch, became the first Texas municipality to enact measures fining landlords who rent to illegal immigrants, authorizing the police to seek certification to act on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security and declaring English the city’s official language.
Since Congress and the Presidency are firmly in the hands of traitors expect to see even more state and local initiatives to get rid of illegal immigants. Our elites oppose the wishes of the masses on illegal immigration. The masses have more control over local and state politicians. So popular demands are more likely to get translated into policy at the state and local levels.
To hear Open Borders advocates tell it Texas was supposed to be a place where whites, blacks, and Hispanics got along in a way that should serve as an example for the rest of the nation. More likely flat and large Texas just provided whites lots of places to flee to - at least for a while. But my interpretation of the anger building there is that the problem is getting harder to escape by moving.
Conservatives in Texas have noticed that low skilled immigrants cost more than they pay in taxes.
Perhaps the most sweeping, proposed by Representative Leo Berman, a Republican from Tyler, would deny state benefits, including welfare payments, food stamps, disability payments and public housing and unemployment assistance to the children of illegal immigrants. The children, if born in the United States, are American citizens.
Automatic granting of citizenship to people who are born here ought to be reversed by legislation. Babies born to foreigners ought to be sent packing with their parents and without US citizenship.
Every year some pregnant South Korean women fly to the United States obstensibly for a vacation and stay long enough to have a baby on American soil which they then take back to Korea with a birth certificate that'll qualify them for a US passport when they get older. The practice probably happens with women from other countries as well.