Immigration, the Bible, and the Lawsuit

"If the responsibility for immigration reform is not with the states"

I understand that bank robbery is a violation of federal law, does this mean that my local police should not act if a bank is robbed and there should be no local laws against robbing banks.

Thank you Lisa for a well-written post that addresses our Christian obligation to offer comfort to those from beyond our borders.

Oh please Deac, this is just too much.

Look, if the law were being enforced, how did we wind up with so many illegal aliens?

Or, if you prefer to think of them as "undocumented", why don't they have the requisite documents? At a minimum it's high time someone in the Feddle Gummint started copying forms and filling them in. Since Obama is supposed to be so sympathetic, you'd think it would be a priority for him to straighten out this little law enforcement paperwork snafu.

And how many illegal aliens are there in Rhode Island? Enough that the state felt the need to take action.

Anything else?

LV

Indeed that was your claim. Is that your opinion, or do you have anything more recent that 50 years old to back that up?

Columnist Jose de la Isla made that claim in a commentary about a month or so ago, plus there was a wire story about that in the last few weeks (to which I no longer have access).

And so then, the further you are from Mexico, the less racist you're likely to be; is that also your claim?

No, in Rhode Island it's unlikely you'll misuse the immigration issue for political reasons.

What is the precise RI statute?

And, FWIW, there is a difference between checking status at legitimate traffic stops (presumably due to a traffic violation) versus checking people simply for suspicion of immigration violations without anything else. (I'll admit I'm not sure whether the "watered-down" version of the AZ law requires something else before an inquiry.)

Now, what's the status of the "ride offers" law that makes it illegal for someone to recklessly offer rides to people when not caring about their immigration status?

A frivolous lawsuit is one that raises no credible claims. If you check the federal complaint, there are at least two points the feds raise that I think are credible, in the sense that they're not so crazy that no reasonable person can accept.
1. AZ is de facto creating foreign policy, which is a federal prerogative. Relations with Mexico are souring, to the detriment of ALL states.
2. The federal government under some circumstances has specifically chosen to not deport certain individuals, without providing them with papers. The feds have this right, which AZ is trying to usurp.

According to Harper...

"According to Jefferson, England was obstructing the migration and naturalization of foreigners in the Americas and that was grounds for a Tea Party! We are a nation of immigrants!"

Wow, and all this time the MSM has been telling us the Tea Party people have no clue what the Tea Party was about. :)

You raise a good point. You would think Mexico would actually care about resolving the issues that is leading to so many of its citizens being refugees, especially considering it is a nation not at war, not suffering natural disaster, is in theory a democracy, an oil-producing state, rather than working to ensure MORE of its citizens leave its territory. Folks want to see what a real culture of corruption is, they can look to Mexico.

But the mere fact that Mexico is getting riled up, to the detriment of US-Mexico relations suggests that foreign policy is implicated, right?

So what? States do stuff all the time that has implications for relations with foreign nations. That doesn't mean they are "conducting foreign policy." And the notion that illegal immigrants from Mexico who have been arrested and deported have been "mistreated" is likewise absurd, unless you are suggesting that Mexico now gets to tell the United States how to determine and enforce its immigration laws. Its been noted in lots of places that Mexico's immigration laws are a lot harsher than those of the U.S.--maybe we should just adopt Mexican law and turn it on them.

Are you suggesting that the feds should not have such a category of person - one whom the feds will not deport, but won't issue papers for either? What does federal law say about this topic?

I know of no such category. Such a person is, in fact, being treated completely unfairly, left in a legal limbo that opens them up to being deported at any time, never knowing when the feds will change their minds. Give them legal status, or send them home. Don't leave them hanging. Or do you think that's a good thing?

But the mere fact that Mexico is getting riled up, to the detriment of US-Mexico relations suggests that foreign policy is implicated, right?

So what? States do stuff all the time that has implications for relations with foreign nations. That doesn't mean they are "conducting foreign policy." And the notion that illegal immigrants from Mexico who have been arrested and deported have been "mistreated" is likewise absurd, unless you are suggesting that Mexico now gets to tell the United States how to determine and enforce its immigration laws. Its been noted in lots of places that Mexico's immigration laws are a lot harsher than those of the U.S.--maybe we should just adopt Mexican law and turn it on them.

Are you suggesting that the feds should not have such a category of person - one whom the feds will not deport, but won't issue papers for either? What does federal law say about this topic?

I know of no such category. Such a person is, in fact, being treated completely unfairly, left in a legal limbo that opens them up to being deported at any time, never knowing when the feds will change their minds. Give them legal status, or send them home. Don't leave them hanging. Or do you think that's a good thing?

Palamas wrote:
The notion that AZ is making "de facto foreign policy" is absurd. The fact that its law raises the ire of the Mexican government is both the latter's problem and the latter's shame, since it has created many of the conditions leading to the U.S. illegal immigration problem.

But the mere fact that Mexico is getting riled up, to the detriment of US-Mexico relations suggests that foreign policy is implicated, right? It's well settled law that is country X somehow mistreats citizens of country Y, then in a way country X has mistreated country Y.

And if the feds are simply turning people loose without granting them legal status, it is engaged in subverting federal law.
Are you suggesting that the feds should not have such a category of person - one whom the feds will not deport, but won't issue papers for either? What does federal law say about this topic?

Palamas wrote:
The notion that AZ is making "de facto foreign policy" is absurd. The fact that its law raises the ire of the Mexican government is both the latter's problem and the latter's shame, since it has created many of the conditions leading to the U.S. illegal immigration problem.

But the mere fact that Mexico is getting riled up, to the detriment of US-Mexico relations suggests that foreign policy is implicated, right? It's well settled law that is country X somehow mistreats citizens of country Y, then in a way country X has mistreated country Y.

And if the feds are simply turning people loose without granting them legal status, it is engaged in subverting federal law.
Are you suggesting that the feds should not have such a category of person - one whom the feds will not deport, but won't issue papers for either? What does federal law say about this topic?

The notion that AZ is making "de facto foreign policy" is absurd. The fact that its law raises the ire of the Mexican government is both the latter's problem and the latter's shame, since it has created many of the conditions leading to the U.S. illegal immigration problem.

As for your second claim, AZ is not trying to usurp any federal prerogative. The AZ law doesn't give the state the ability to deport anyone. It directs the state to turn illegals over to the feds, whose job it is then to deal with them. And if the feds are simply turning people loose without granting them legal status, it is engaged in subverting federal law.

The notion that AZ is making "de facto foreign policy" is absurd. The fact that its law raises the ire of the Mexican government is both the latter's problem and the latter's shame, since it has created many of the conditions leading to the U.S. illegal immigration problem.

As for your second claim, AZ is not trying to usurp any federal prerogative. The AZ law doesn't give the state the ability to deport anyone. It directs the state to turn illegals over to the feds, whose job it is then to deal with them. And if the feds are simply turning people loose without granting them legal status, it is engaged in subverting federal law.

Palamas wrote:
So what? States do stuff all the time that has implications for relations with foreign nations. That doesn't mean they are "conducting foreign policy." And the notion that illegal immigrants from Mexico who have been arrested and deported have been "mistreated" is likewise absurd, unless you are suggesting that Mexico now gets to tell the United States how to determine and enforce its immigration laws.

What about the Mexicans who are here legally who nevertheless get investigated, let's say repeatedly? (At some point these people will equate the investigations to harassment.) So where is the line drawn as to what states may do with foreign nations?

Its been noted in lots of places that Mexico's immigration laws are a lot harsher than those of the U.S.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

(Quoting me) Are you suggesting that the feds should not have such a category of person - one whom the feds will not deport, but won't issue papers for either? What does federal law say about this topic?

I know of no such category. Such a person is, in fact, being treated completely unfairly, left in a legal limbo that opens them up to being deported at any time, never knowing when the feds will change their minds. Give them legal status, or send them home. Don't leave them hanging.

Such may or may not be good policy. I find it a bit strange myself. But such is what the US Attorney is claiming to the court, so I assume that the category is real. (I'm sure it's unethical and illegal for a lawyer to file something that he/she knows is factually false.)

Overall, there are two distinct questions here. One is whether the AZ law is a good idea. Two is whether it is legal when we consider the federal prerogatives. What the court can decide is only question #2.

I think it might serve a unique purpose to consider the first two deportees in Earth's history. I refer to Adam and Eve.

After God created Adam, He them processed immigrant Adam to the Garden of Eden. Being naturalized by the Creator Himself, Adam then slept while God created the first supernatural born citizen of Eden, Eve.

Both being perfect, they nevertheless were expected to conduct themselves according to the standards of God, His laws, while in God's Country.

But of course, they didn't. Upon their gross violation, God made lawful contact, received their pleas and rendered judgment. Receiving due process and summary conviction, they also received official pardon for their lawlessness. Having received this grace, they nevertheless were promptly deported by the Immigration and Naturalization Director Himself, God. Border patrol agents were stationed to prevent any return. Though reconciled to their Creator, their life as estranged immigrants from God's perfect abode commenced.

Blue Deacon,
You stated,".....You need to read your minor prophets more. They talk a lot about justice, not so much about law enforcement. "

Wasn't the reason the Minor Prophets were talking about Justice is because the law was being broken?

Please tell me is the national border the only one you are oppossed to having? What about the others?

Voting prectint?
School zone?
City council district?
County council district?

State house?
State senate?
U.S. House district?
State?

Please tell since us. Libertrians are always accused of wanting kaos, I think this really sounds like kaos.

In fact, you have no point. You're confusing two very different issues. You need to read your minor prophets more. They talk a lot about justice, not so much about law enforcement.

Regarding my claim that the real reason the state is doing this is because the legal Latinos in that state tend toward the Democrats, and this is a way to strike fear into their hearts to keep them from voting, that's fact too. I read it somewhere.

Besides, it's a common tactic of the right-wing to use fear and intimidation, and this is true. We all know it.

It's what Rengquist did. Reagan did it too when he mentioned "states' rights." And now we see it with the Tea Parties.

Nonsense -- as Federal law actually is being enforced contrary to popular opinion, this represents pure politics on the part of the Republican governor of Arizona. The real reason the state is doing this is because the legal Latinos in that state tend toward the Democrats, and this is a way to strike fear into their hearts to keep them from voting. Arizona has had a long tradition of trying to suppress minority votes; the late SCOTUS chief justice William Rehnquist was involved in that during the 1960s.

Yes, we thank you for instituting a frivolous lawsuit that has no chance of succeeding because there is no conflict between federal law and Arizona -- the conflict is between the President's desire to ignore federal law and Arizona's determination to see it enforced. Since Barack Obama cannot actually make the law go away (even if he is determined to be lax in enforcing it) Arizona's actions will be judged by the law, not Obama's preferences.

To be fair, Obama isn't the first President to neglect immigration law enforcement. But with a little luck maybe he'll be the last.

LV

As I indicated above, the Arizona law was enacted for political reasons. And besides that, just how many "illegal" Mexicans managed to make their way to Rhode Island?

"If the responsibility for immigration reform is not with the states"

I understand that bank robbery is a violation of federal law, does this mean that my local police should not act if a bank is robbed and there should be no local laws against robbing banks.