U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-09-2011, 08:45 AM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,809,199 times
Reputation: 3028

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by axixic2 View Post
The states do not have a legal right to enforce immigration. That is a federal power and whenever a state usurps federal power, the Justice Department must sue to stop it. That's just the way it is under this president or any president. Eisenhower sent in seasoned troops to protect kids to integrate schools after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that there is no separate but equal. The states thought they could segregate and the federal government said they can't. Federal law trumps state law. It's the Supremacy Code.
States enforce federal laws on a daily basis. Don’t local police enforce our federal drug laws by apprehending and prosecuting drug offenders? Why should immigration laws differ? Furthermore, if the DOJ can sue states for usurping federal laws by enacting their own immigration laws, then please explain why the DOJ has not sued states and cities for enacting “sanctuary” policies in direct violation of federal law? After all, federal law prohibits the aiding and abetting of illegal aliens. Yet, numerous jurisdictions have opted to ignore federal laws with blatant impunity. That certainly indicates a double standard to me.

Federal law does not always trump state law -- case in point, minimum wage laws. If a state has a higher minimum wage than the federal, the state rate prevails.

 
Old 09-09-2011, 10:01 AM
 
Location: Axixic, Jalisco, MX
1,281 posts, read 2,819,737 times
Reputation: 766
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar View Post
I was referring to your use of the word “Mex’Kins.” That is what I bolded as unnecessary. Again, I did not mention Mexicans in my response. Nor have I ever used your term when discussing them.

Our judicial system is replete with corruption. Therefore, it is not farfetched for a judge to render decisions to placate politicians, including our president. Have you not heard of the thousands of immigration cases that were scheduled for hearings, but were abruptly dismissed without a single hearing? Even their lawyers were shocked. And, this occurred last year, prior to the new policy.


Immigration attorneys see deportation cases tossed

No, judges do not find, arrest, and then deport. But, they do dismiss cases according to DOJ directives. I do not believe the new deportation policy is designed to first deport violent criminals, and then pursue the others. Rather, it is just another ruse to allow illegals to remain in this country. I would wholeheartedly support a measure intended to prioritize deportations by targeting the most violent illegals. But, that is not the case. In time, you and others will realize the true agenda after none of the targeted 300,000 are deported, and when most of the “other” illegals are granted a reprieve.
For crying out loud, don't any of you know how the judicial system works?

The DOJ brings charges. The DOJ dismisses charges. The DOJ submits the Order to Dismiss to the judge. The judge signs the order. The judge cannot refuse to sign an order to Dismiss. The judge has to sign the order to get the cases off the docket. The judge was not complicit with the DOJ in dismissing cases. The judge does not prosecute and if the prosecution dismisses there is not a defendant to try. A judge cannot ask the prosecution (DOJ) to prosecute someone.

All of those cases were dismissed because of the new rules given to the local offices to deport criminals first. If it had happened a few days before or after, maybe fewer or more cases would have been dismissed. What if the new rule wasn't issued that day but given three days later? A rule is issued on some day and followed on some day.

ICE and DOJ have a budget and only so much money so they were told to spend their resources on deporting criminals first.

PolitiFact | Obama says deportation of criminals up 70 percent under his administration

Quote:
"But I want to emphasize we’re not doing it haphazardly. We’re focusing our limited resources and people on violent offenders and people convicted of crimes -- not just families, not just folks who are just looking to scrape together an income. And as a result, we’ve increased the removal of criminals by 70 percent."
Quote:
According to data provided by the Department of Homeland Security, the number of illegal immigrants "removed" rose about 6 percent -- from 369,221 to 392,862 -- between the end of September 2008 (four months before Obama took office) and the end of September 2010. But a much larger percentage of those deported were convicted criminals. In 2008, 31 percent were criminals; but by 2010, the percentage jumped to 50 percent.
Obama Administration Curtails Deportations of Non-Criminal Immigrants - ABC News

Quote:
The Department of Homeland Security said it will also no longer focus its limited resources on apprehending and deporting non-criminals, including young people brought to the country illegally by their parents, military veterans and the spouses of active-duty troops.
Quote:
“It makes no sense to spend our enforcement resources on these low-priority cases when they could be used with more impact on others, including individuals who have been convicted of serious crimes,” Cecilia Munoz, the administration's director of intergovernmental affairs, wrote in a White House blog post.
 
Old 09-09-2011, 10:10 AM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,809,199 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by axixic2 View Post
For crying out loud, don't any of you know how the judicial system works?

The DOJ brings charges. The DOJ dismisses charges. The DOJ submits the Order to Dismiss to the judge. The judge signs the order. The judge cannot refuse to sign an order to Dismiss. The judge has to sign the order to get the cases off the docket. The judge was not complicit with the DOJ in dismissing cases. The judge does not prosecute and if the prosecution dismisses there is not a defendant to try. A judge cannot ask the prosecution (DOJ) to prosecute someone.

All of those cases were dismissed because of the new rules given to the local offices to deport criminals first. If it had happened a few days before or after, maybe fewer or more cases would have been dismissed. What if the new rule wasn't issued that day but given three days later? A rule is issued on some day and followed on some day.

ICE and DOJ have a budget and only so much money so they were told to spend their resources on deporting criminals first.

PolitiFact | Obama says deportation of criminals up 70 percent under his administration





Obama Administration Curtails Deportations of Non-Criminal Immigrants - ABC News
You have every right to believe a lie. Again, in time, the truth will become glaringly clear. Sorry, but corruption abounds, including within our judicial system.
 
Old 09-09-2011, 10:25 AM
 
Location: Axixic, Jalisco, MX
1,281 posts, read 2,819,737 times
Reputation: 766
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar View Post
States enforce federal laws on a daily basis. Don’t local police enforce our federal drug laws by apprehending and prosecuting drug offenders? Why should immigration laws differ? Furthermore, if the DOJ can sue states for usurping federal laws by enacting their own immigration laws, then please explain why the DOJ has not sued states and cities for enacting “sanctuary” policies in direct violation of federal law? After all, federal law prohibits the aiding and abetting of illegal aliens. Yet, numerous jurisdictions have opted to ignore federal laws with blatant impunity. That certainly indicates a double standard to me.

Federal law does not always trump state law -- case in point, minimum wage laws. If a state has a higher minimum wage than the federal, the state rate prevails.
Federal Minimum Wage law does not prohibit states from paying a higher minimum wage. The federal law sets the lowest wage an employer can pay. Why do you think federal law would state that all states can only pay the lowest minimum wage? Wouldn't that mean everyone can only earn minimum wage?

Justice: Sanctuary cities safe from law - Washington Times

Quote:
A week after suing Arizona and arguing that the state’s immigration law creates a patchwork of rules, the Obama administration said it will not go after so-called sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with the federal government on immigration enforcement, on the grounds that they are not as bad as a state that “actively interferes.”
Quote:
”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,” Tracy Schmaler, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., told The Washington Times. “That’s what Arizona did in this case.”

Also, read the Constitutional problems with the 1996 law:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/usc.cgi?ACTION=RETRIEVE&FILE=$$xa$$busc8.wais&star t=2894451&SIZE=2654&TYPE=PDF

Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Old 09-09-2011, 10:38 AM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,809,199 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by axixic2 View Post
Federal Minimum Wage law does not prohibit states from paying a higher minimum wage. The federal law sets the lowest wage an employer can pay. Why do you think federal law would state that all states can only pay the lowest minimum wage? Wouldn't that mean everyone can only earn minimum wage?

Justice: Sanctuary cities safe from law - Washington Times


Also, read the Constitutional problems with the 1996 law:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/usc.cgi?ACTION=RETRIEVE&FILE=$$xa$$busc8.wais&star t=2894451&SIZE=2654&TYPE=PDF

Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You said federal law trumps state law. I mentioned the minimum wage law simply to illustrate that federal law does not always trump state law, period.

Your exact words. . . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by axixic2 View Post
Federal law trumps state law. It's the Supremacy Code.
 
Old 09-09-2011, 10:54 AM
 
Location: Axixic, Jalisco, MX
1,281 posts, read 2,819,737 times
Reputation: 766
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar View Post
You said federal law trumps state law. I mentioned the minimum wage law simply to illustrate that federal law does not always trump state law, period.

Your exact words. . . .
How are states that pay a higher minimum wage than federal law requires, trumping federal law? Federal law states that the states can pay higher but not lower minimum wage. If a state passed a law that its minimum wage was lower than federal minimum wage, that would be trumping and violating federal law.

Federal law gives a right. If a state gives more of a right, that is legal. If a state takes away a federal right or diminishes it, that is illegal. Federal law is the supreme law and all other law is under it.
 
Old 09-09-2011, 11:00 AM
 
Location: Jacurutu
5,302 posts, read 4,009,391 times
Reputation: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by axixic2 View Post
...Also, read the Constitutional problems with the 1996 law:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/usc.cgi?ACTION=RETRIEVE&FILE=$$xa$$busc8.wais&star t=2894451&SIZE=2654&TYPE=PDF

Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An aside being that the IIRIR, with its stricter penalties, was signed into law by then-President Bill Clinton...
 
Old 09-09-2011, 11:10 AM
 
12,870 posts, read 12,772,010 times
Reputation: 4446
Quote:
Originally Posted by axixic2 View Post
The President barely knows these people and is only slightly related to them. They are the half brother and sister of his father, another person he barely knew. Not supporting people who are not really related to you or people you don't know, is not hypocritical. Has he told others to support distant relatives who are strangers? No, so he is not a hypocrite.

How many distant relatives do you support?

The aunt lives in a state supported housing project. Obama hasn't seen her in years and the last time was when she paid her way from Kenya way to see him sworn in as a Senator. Until he was notified about her illegal status, he did not know she was still in the country.

His grandfather had three wives and many children. His father had three wives and Obama has half brothers and sisters he has never met.

What does "obama is a rich man (australian)" mean? It is no secret that Michelle Obama was a successful attorney and Obama wrote two best selling books before he became president.

The president is not going to step into the deportation or non-deportation hearings of these people. He can't legally do that and he has enough problems without getting himself in trouble over people he does not know, socialize with or who are actual relatives. The half aunt was given a pass because of health problems. The uncle will probably be deported. Obama doesn't need the headache and will be glad to see him go.

If you want millionaires and billionaires to keep paying less percentage of their incomes in taxes than their secretaries, great but I think that is foolish and so do billionaires Buffet and Gates.



The states do not have a legal right to enforce immigration. That is a federal power and whenever a state usurps federal power, the Justice Department must sue to stop it. That's just the way it is under this president or any president. Eisenhower sent in seasoned troops to protect kids to integrate schools after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that there is no separate but equal. The states thought they could segregate and the federal government said they can't. Federal law trumps state law. It's the Supremacy Code.

Obama denies knowing aunt's illegal status - politics - Decision '08 - Barack Obama News - msnbc.com
australian was the source document. i always put source documents in (the parenthesis).

not everyone is a wealth redistributor, and not everyone wants to take other people's money from them---but obama does.

i am just pointing out the hypocrisy of him not voluntarily sharing HIS money supporting HIS relatives.

buffett will be paying more taxes, because, oddly enough, he was evidently NOT paying his "fair share" and now berkshire hathaway owes BACK taxes also. that might shut him up for a little bit now, and i am doing my little happy dance!

that is how a lot of government shills operate-like geithner.

they want OTHER PEOPLE to pay more taxes. i say anybody wants to pay taxes WRITE THE DARN CHECK and shut up about what the rest of us have to do.
 
Old 09-09-2011, 11:30 AM
 
327 posts, read 262,079 times
Reputation: 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
Please illustrate how Obama is a tyrant?

The dictionary defines "tyrant" as:
1. An absolute ruler who governs without restrictions.
2. A ruler who exercises power in a harsh, cruel manner.
3. An oppressive, harsh, arbitrary person.
Obama definitely fits the first two. Bypassing congress with amnesty. Forcing healthcare against the majority of americans, something he would not take himself.
 
Old 09-09-2011, 11:53 AM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,809,199 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by axixic2 View Post
How are states that pay a higher minimum wage than federal law requires, trumping federal law? Federal law states that the states can pay higher but not lower minimum wage. If a state passed a law that its minimum wage was lower than federal minimum wage, that would be trumping and violating federal law.

Federal law gives a right. If a state gives more of a right, that is legal. If a state takes away a federal right or diminishes it, that is illegal. Federal law is the supreme law and all other law is under it.
I have no intentions of belaboring the issue. You made a statement, and I presented an example to refute it. If states can enact laws that give more rights than federal laws, could states also grant work authorization to illegal aliens, or legalize their status? I think not.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top