President Obama, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer to Face Off Over Immigration at White House

Status
Not open for further replies.
TXgolfer said:
Yup......but triple layer tha fence.....50 ya spacing......filled with razor wire....that might just do the trick. Not opposed to mines either. It's only inhumane if people break the rules.



Random bunker blast practice. And heavier patrol.



Have it built by prisioners and illegal immigrant detainees.

And when all of these measures are complete we won't need many troops. The Board Patrols Job will be much easier.
Click to expand...

when will you run for President?
 
kokonut said:
Which ones? The fact that illegal aliens cross our borders illegally by the thousands every week for years? What is it then? 10 a week or what?
Click to expand...

Still disagree.

You need know why and it is about political parties.
 
Jiro said:
when will you run for President?
Click to expand...

:lol: I left out my plan to breed pit bulls with great white sharks....

:)

Actully a shitload of underfed Pit Bulls might help. Instead of putting the mean/crazy ones to sleep lets breed them with their sister and release them on the border.......Maybe give them some steroids too.
 
TXgolfer said:
:lol: I left out my plan to breed pit bulls with great white sharks....

:)

Actully a shitload of underfed Pit Bulls might help. Instead of putting the mean/crazy ones to sleep lets breed them with their sister and release them on the border.......Maybe give them some steroids too.
Click to expand...

sounds like you've been talking to Dr. Moreau :Ohno:
 
Foxrac said:
Still disagree.

You need know why and it is about political parties.
Click to expand...

That does not get the job done! Maybe we should throw every single one of them(both sides) out of Washington and impose one term limits.
 
Tousi said:
That does not get the job done! Maybe we should throw every single one of them(both sides) out of Washington and impose one term limits.
Click to expand...

No, I just want all parties to have common sense to combat against illegal immigrants.
 
Jiro said:
I will break it down for you -



will lead to



thus - Brewer's new immigration law should have focused on that rather than empowering officer. Yes it did address it but it's tiny.
Click to expand...



As I have stated over and over and over.....I am for all of it. Cracking down on employers is hard to do though and it isn't enough.
 
Foxrac said:
No, I just want all parties to have common sense to combat against illegal immigrants.
Click to expand...

What you want is not happening! America is getting fed up with those scoundrels!
 
TXgolfer said:
As I have stated over and over and over.....I am for all of it. Cracking down on employers is hard to do though and it isn't enough.
Click to expand...

employers reside in state, not "federal" land. so state needs to do its job too.
 
Jiro said:
employers reside in state, not "federal" land. so state needs to do its job too.
Click to expand...

Sure but how exactly do they crack down on empolyers who hired illegals unknowingly Many have fake IDs and references often those are stolen so they even show up on credit reports..


AND..... it is the Federal government that sets hiring standards.....ie minimum wage, EEOC......

AND......Many employers operate in more than one state
 
TXgolfer said:
Sure but how exactly do they crack down on empolyers who hired illegals unknowingly Many have fake IDs and references often those are stolen so they even show up on credit reports..


AND..... it is the Federal government that sets hiring standards.....ie minimum wage, EEOC......
Click to expand...
1. Real ID Act
2. EEVS (Electronic Employment Verification System)
3. bunch of little things

all above are part of federal immigration reform... which is fiercely opposed by GOP and many states. :dunno:

TXgolfer said:
AND......Many employers operate in more than one state
Click to expand...
the state is compelled to prosecute on its jurisdiction. if the employer is in that state, they can arrest him. it's up to fed to make it a federal case or not but the state is allowed to prosecute him.
 
Originally Posted by Jiro
I will break it down for you -

Originally Posted by TXgolfer
Knowingly employing illegal labor

Originally Posted by Jiro
will lead to

Originally Posted by TXgolfer
Entering the country illegally

Originally Posted by Jiro
thus - Brewer's new immigration law should have focused on that rather than empowering officer. Yes it did address it but it's tiny.
Click to expand...


Jiro said:
employers reside in state, not "federal" land. so state needs to do its job too.
Click to expand...

Jiro said:
the state is compelled to prosecute on its jurisdiction. if the employer is in that state, they can arrest him. it's up to fed to make it a federal case or not but the state is allowed to prosecute him.
Click to expand...

:hmm:

Justice Dept. Challenges Arizona Over Other Immigration Law Targeting Employers
By Jim Angle

Published June 03, 2010
| FOXNews.com

The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to overturn an appeals court decision that upheld Arizona's right to punish employers for hiring illegal immigrants.

The Arizona law gives the state the right to suspend or terminate business licenses.

"If you hire a person in this country illegally knowingly, you'll lose your license. First offense, 10 days. Second offense, revocation, never to do business in the state of Arizona again," said Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce, a Republican who helped draft the new controversial Arizona law that cracks down on illegal immigrants.

The Obama administration apparently worries letting that law stand would leave in place a precedent that states have a legitimate role in enforcing immigration laws – a notion the administration fiercely opposes.

"The argument that the Justice Department is making here, is you know, the fundamental question, which is where does state authority begin and end when it comes to federal immigration law?" said Benjamin Johnson, executive director of the American Immigration Council.

The Arizona statue relies on a law passed by the U.S. Congress in 1986, which made clear federal law preempts the states on immigration – but left one exception: "The provisions of this section preempt any state or local law imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ unauthorized aliens."

"Congress said very clearly that licensing and similar laws can be used to impose consequences on employers who hire unauthorized aliens at the state level," said Kris Kobach, a law professor at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. "And that's exactly what Arizona did."

Oddly enough, the law in question was signed in 2007 by then-Gov. Janet Napolitano, now Obama's Homeland Security secretary.

Not only that, but the law was upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

"And bear in mind that 9th Circuit is generally regarded as one of the more liberal circuits in the United States – and so the Obama administration, evidently, believes that the 9th Circuit views on this question is too conservative for this administration," Kobach said.

And this is yet another issue in the ongoing tug of war between Washington and the states, especially Arizona.

"The idea that states can't be involved in immigration law in any way is wrong," Johnson said. "The states have always had a role to play in immigration enforcement. The tricky part is defining where that authority begins and ends."
Click to expand...

FOXNews.com - Justice Dept. Challenges Arizona Over Other Immigration Law Targeting Employers
 
I like what "factcheck.org" said about the law:

"Perhaps the single biggest reason this law is so controversial is that immigration – like, say, foreign policy – always has been the purview of the federal government. The feds’ authority is rooted in Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power to "establish a uniform rule of naturalization." As a practical matter, said Kevin Johnson, an immigration law expert and dean of the University of California at Davis School of Law, it’s unworkable for states to have their own immigration laws, "just like states can’t have their own foreign policies." He noted that "the federal government is more inclined to consider the national interest." For that reason, Johnson believes that legal challenges to the law – several have already been filed, and the Obama administration is also considering a lawsuit – are likely to succeed under the federal preemption doctrine, which is based on the Constitution’s Article VI, clause 2. Known as the supremacy clause, it says that federal law shall bind "judges in every state" even if state law contradicts it."

Arizona’s ‘Papers Please’ Law | FactCheck.org

So, really, the state cannot do anything because it's a federal issue and the state is NOT allowed to change federal policies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top