Half of Americans oppose Obama's immigration lawsuit

[Pooky 3,348]

Do you know what a sanctuary city means? Do you know how long they've been around? Do you know which cities are 'sanctuary cities'?

More Obama bashing. Sanctuary cities have been around longer than you've been on your Obama hatefest.

And I object to your grouping people who support Arizona as being on an "Obama hatefest." I disagreed strongly with BushBaby when he tried immigration "reform." I disagreed strongly with Uncle Fester, when he ran for President in '08, because he was pro-immigration "reform" then, although he has flip-flopped his way to the other side of the argument for this election season.

I don't view this as an anti-Obama, anti-Democrat, or anti-Republican argument, as they have all failed to enforce Federal law, when in the position of ultimate responsibility. This is an issue of the American people against the Washington machine. Can you honestly say that this is a political party issue, with consistently between 60% and 70% of people polled professing to be against illegal immigration?

There is broad bi-partisan support for securing our borders, for enforcing current Federal law. Why will the current administration not listen to the electorate and act in accordance with their wishes ... and the law?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

You're sounding frantic, Stevie. We certainly have proven that sanctuary cities are engaging in law breaking, and that this administration encourages it.

The unavoidable truth is, the federal government is arguing to the court that they want the OPTION of NOT enforcing federal immigration law, and sanctuary cities fall in line with that. What other federal laws will they choose NOT to enforce if allowed to get away with this lack of action against illegal immigration? The outcry against this should be overwhelming, and if it has anything to do with Obama bashing, it's because Obama is the current despot leading this wrong-headed effort.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I have included a link to the US v AZ complaint text in this article.

Arizona and the Imperial Presidency

The Obama administration makes a case for executive discretion

By JAMES TARANTO

The federal government yesterday brought its challenge to Arizona's new immigration law, filing a lawsuit titled U.S. v. Arizona in a Phoenix federal court. Although much criticism of the law has focused on the danger of "racial profiling," the Justice Department is not suing on equal-protection grounds, suggesting federal lawyers have concluded there is nothing in the text of the Arizona law that raises such concerns. (This does not preclude the possibility of later actions alleging discriminatory enforcement.)

Instead, the challenge is on "pre-emption" grounds. As the Associated Press sums it up:

The suit lays out why the government believes that immigration laws passed by Congress and enforced by a range of federal agencies must take precedence to any passed by a state Legislature. . . .

The arguments will focus on a core constitutional concern--balancing power between the states and the federal government. More specifically, the issue centers on the long-running "pre-emption" legal argument that says federal law trumps state law.

"The nation's immigration laws reflect a careful and considered balance of national law enforcement, foreign relations, and humanitarian interests," the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit goes on to say that a "state may not establish its own immigration policy or enforce state laws in a manner that interferes with the federal immigration laws. The Constitution and the federal immigration laws do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country."

But, the AP notes, defenders of the law argue that there is no conflict between Phoenix and Washington--that "the state law is only prohibiting conduct already illegal under federal law."

The complaint, however, alleges that Arizona's priorities conflict with federal ones:

The nation's immigration laws reflect a careful and considered balance of national law enforcement, foreign relations, and humanitarian interests. Congress has assigned to the United States Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, and Department of State, along with other federal agencies, the task of enforcing and administering these immigration-related laws. In administering these laws, the federal agencies balance the complex--and often competing--objectives that animate federal immigration law and policy.

The feds claim that Arizona oversteps its bounds because its law "pursues only one goal--'attrition' "--at the expense of others, such as concentrating enforcement on the most dangerous aliens, protecting the rights of asylum seekers, and maintaining amity with Mexico and other foreign countries.

The real issue in this case is not whether the federal government has the power to pre-empt Arizona's immigration law, as it asserts in the lawsuit. It unquestionably does. The question is whether Washington has properly exercised that power.

In De Canas v. Bica (1976), the U.S. Supreme Court considered a challenge to a California law barring employers from "knowingly employing" illegal aliens "if such employment would have an adverse effect on lawful resident workers." Migrant farmworkers sued, claiming that the law was an unconstitutional intrusion into an area of federal jurisdiction. In an 8-0 decision written by Justice William Brennan, the court upheld the California law.

A key passage in the Brennan decision distinguished De Canas from earlier cases in which the court had struck down state laws on pre-emption grounds (citations omitted and paragraph breaks added):

Hines v. Davidowitz (1941) and Pennsylvania v. Nelson (1956), upon which respondents rely, are fully consistent with this conclusion. Hines held that Pennsylvania's Alien Registration Act of 1939 was pre-empted by the federal Alien Registration Act. Nelson held that the Pennsylvania Sedition Act was pre-empted by the federal Smith Act.

Although both cases relied on the comprehensiveness of the federal regulatory schemes in finding pre-emptive intent, both federal statutes were in the specific field which the States were attempting to regulate, while here there is no indication that Congress intended to preclude state law in the area of employment regulation. And Nelson stated that even in the face of the general immigration laws, States would have the right "to enforce their sedition laws at times when the Federal Government has not occupied the field and is not protecting the entire country from seditious conduct."

Moreover, in neither Hines nor Nelson was there affirmative evidence, as here, that Congress sanctioned concurrent state legislation on the subject covered by the challenged state law. Furthermore, to the extent those cases were based on the predominance of federal interest in the fields of immigration and foreign affairs, there would not appear to be a similar federal interest in a situation in which the state law is fashioned to remedy local problems, and operates only on local employers, and only with respect to individuals whom the Federal Government has already declared cannot work in this country. Finally, the Pennsylvania statutes in Hines and Nelson imposed burdens on aliens lawfully within the country that created conflicts with various federal laws.

Some of the distinctions Brennan makes cut against the Arizona law. Brennan expressly cited "the predominance of federal interest" in immigration (as opposed to employment law), and the federal government's complaint against Arizona alleges, plausibly, that the state law will impose burdens on legal aliens.

But he also makes clear that the power to pre-empt or sanction state laws in an area of federal interest rests with Congress, not the president. This would seem to suggest that if the Arizona law is consistent with federal law and Congress has not expressly barred action by states, the Arizona law should stand.

A large part of the administration's argument, by contrast, is that the Arizona law is inconsistent with federal immigration policy--i.e., with the executive branch's decisions about how to enforce laws passed by Congress. An important question for the court, then, will be whether Congress has delegated its authority to pre-empt state laws by granting discretion over law enforcement to the president.

In other words, this is a case about the balance of power within the federal government, with the Obama administration on the side of expanding the authority of the executive branch.

Edited July 10, 2010 by Sofiyya

[evli1966 88]

I have included a link to the US v AZ complaint text in this article.

Arizona and the Imperial Presidency

The Obama administration makes a case for executive discretion

By JAMES TARANTO

The federal government yesterday brought its challenge to Arizona's new immigration law, filing a lawsuit titled U.S. v. Arizona in a Phoenix federal court. Although much criticism of the law has focused on the danger of "racial profiling," the Justice Department is not suing on equal-protection grounds, suggesting federal lawyers have concluded there is nothing in the text of the Arizona law that raises such concerns. (This does not preclude the possibility of later actions alleging discriminatory enforcement.)

Instead, the challenge is on "pre-emption" grounds. As the Associated Press sums it up:

The suit lays out why the government believes that immigration laws passed by Congress and enforced by a range of federal agencies must take precedence to any passed by a state Legislature. . . .

The arguments will focus on a core constitutional concern--balancing power between the states and the federal government. More specifically, the issue centers on the long-running "pre-emption" legal argument that says federal law trumps state law.

"The nation's immigration laws reflect a careful and considered balance of national law enforcement, foreign relations, and humanitarian interests," the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit goes on to say that a "state may not establish its own immigration policy or enforce state laws in a manner that interferes with the federal immigration laws. The Constitution and the federal immigration laws do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country."

But, the AP notes, defenders of the law argue that there is no conflict between Phoenix and Washington--that "the state law is only prohibiting conduct already illegal under federal law."

The complaint, however, alleges that Arizona's priorities conflict with federal ones:

The nation's immigration laws reflect a careful and considered balance of national law enforcement, foreign relations, and humanitarian interests. Congress has assigned to the United States Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, and Department of State, along with other federal agencies, the task of enforcing and administering these immigration-related laws. In administering these laws, the federal agencies balance the complex--and often competing--objectives that animate federal immigration law and policy.

The feds claim that Arizona oversteps its bounds because its law "pursues only one goal--'attrition' "--at the expense of others, such as concentrating enforcement on the most dangerous aliens, protecting the rights of asylum seekers, and maintaining amity with Mexico and other foreign countries.

The real issue in this case is not whether the federal government has the power to pre-empt Arizona's immigration law, as it asserts in the lawsuit. It unquestionably does. The question is whether Washington has properly exercised that power.

In De Canas v. Bica (1976), the U.S. Supreme Court considered a challenge to a California law barring employers from "knowingly employing" illegal aliens "if such employment would have an adverse effect on lawful resident workers." Migrant farmworkers sued, claiming that the law was an unconstitutional intrusion into an area of federal jurisdiction. In an 8-0 decision written by Justice William Brennan, the court upheld the California law.

A key passage in the Brennan decision distinguished De Canas from earlier cases in which the court had struck down state laws on pre-emption grounds (citations omitted and paragraph breaks added):

Hines v. Davidowitz (1941) and Pennsylvania v. Nelson (1956), upon which respondents rely, are fully consistent with this conclusion. Hines held that Pennsylvania's Alien Registration Act of 1939 was pre-empted by the federal Alien Registration Act. Nelson held that the Pennsylvania Sedition Act was pre-empted by the federal Smith Act.

Although both cases relied on the comprehensiveness of the federal regulatory schemes in finding pre-emptive intent, both federal statutes were in the specific field which the States were attempting to regulate, while here there is no indication that Congress intended to preclude state law in the area of employment regulation. And Nelson stated that even in the face of the general immigration laws, States would have the right "to enforce their sedition laws at times when the Federal Government has not occupied the field and is not protecting the entire country from seditious conduct."

Moreover, in neither Hines nor Nelson was there affirmative evidence, as here, that Congress sanctioned concurrent state legislation on the subject covered by the challenged state law. Furthermore, to the extent those cases were based on the predominance of federal interest in the fields of immigration and foreign affairs, there would not appear to be a similar federal interest in a situation in which the state law is fashioned to remedy local problems, and operates only on local employers, and only with respect to individuals whom the Federal Government has already declared cannot work in this country. Finally, the Pennsylvania statutes in Hines and Nelson imposed burdens on aliens lawfully within the country that created conflicts with various federal laws.

Some of the distinctions Brennan makes cut against the Arizona law. Brennan expressly cited "the predominance of federal interest" in immigration (as opposed to employment law), and the federal government's complaint against Arizona alleges, plausibly, that the state law will impose burdens on legal aliens.

But he also makes clear that the power to pre-empt or sanction state laws in an area of federal interest rests with Congress, not the president. This would seem to suggest that if the Arizona law is consistent with federal law and Congress has not expressly barred action by states, the Arizona law should stand.

A large part of the administration's argument, by contrast, is that the Arizona law is inconsistent with federal immigration policy--i.e., with the executive branch's decisions about how to enforce laws passed by Congress. An important question for the court, then, will be whether Congress has delegated its authority to pre-empt state laws by granting discretion over law enforcement to the president.

In other words, this is a case about the balance of power within the federal government, with the Obama administration on the side of expanding the authority of the executive branch.

I other words it could and would give the presidency the power to enforce and pass judgement of such laws.

Giving the precedence that he could move forward with a mass parole of illegal immigrants followed by a mass amnesty to those that were documented as paroled.

Am I intereting this correctly?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I other words it could and would give the presidency the power to enforce and pass judgement of such laws.

Giving the precedence that he could move forward with a mass parole of illegal immigrants followed by a mass amnesty to those that were documented as paroled.

Am I intereting this correctly?

The suit is asking that the Executive branch be allowed expanded powers to preempt state laws in areas like immigration that are currently assigned to Congress.

It is asserting the authority to decide when, how and if to enforce immigration laws in conjunction with how much it wants to suck up to or punish any particular nation. This concept is inherently political and not the least bit altruistic.

It is seeking the power to diminish states rights and impose one size fits all laws that preclude states from providing local remedies for local problems, such as Arizona has done in response to its local problems. Coupled with the court's reluctance to rein in broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause, winning this suit on these grounds would effectively allow the feds to, in practice, arbitrarily cripple a state's ability to govern within its own borders, extinquishing any distinction between federal enumerated powers and states rights as discerned in the Constitution.

The president, in his prior role as a senior lecturer in the area of Constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School, gave interviews over the years (see youtube insert below) before he became president where he referred to the Constitution as a "charter of negative liberties", meaning it limits what the government can do to and for us to create more equity and equal outcomes for more people. He believes that is does not grant a sufficient amount of power to the federal government as required to make over the country in his image as a One World leader, appeasing every lower common denominator around the globe. In other words, it's payback time, and payback is a b!tch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

Edited July 10, 2010 by Sofiyya

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You're sounding frantic, Stevie. We certainly have proven that sanctuary cities are engaging in law breaking, and that this administration encourages it.

The unavoidable truth is, the federal government is arguing to the court that they want the OPTION of NOT enforcing federal immigration law, and sanctuary cities fall in line with that. What other federal laws will they choose NOT to enforce if allowed to get away with this lack of action against illegal immigration? The outcry against this should be overwhelming, and if it has anything to do with Obama bashing, it's because Obama is the current despot leading this wrong-headed effort.

Law enforcement routinely rely on informants to help them nab the larger fish - I suppose in your eyes, those law enforcement officers are violating law by not arresting these individuals for whatever petty crimes they've committed. Sanctuary cities have been around a long time. Trying to paint them as in violation of Federal Laws and blaming Obama for not going after them is nothing more than partisan hackery. There's nothing stopping any federal prosecutor from going after these cities if you truly believe they are breaking the law.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Law enforcement routinely rely on informants to help them nab the larger fish - I suppose in your eyes, those law enforcement officers are violating law by not arresting these individuals for whatever petty crimes they've committed. Sanctuary cities have been around a long time. Trying to paint them as in violation of Federal Laws and blaming Obama for not going after them is nothing more than partisan hackery. There's nothing stopping any federal prosecutor from going after these cities if you truly believe they are breaking the law.

Sanctuary cities are illegal and have been illegal for a long time. No one has to try to paint them as in violation of federal law, the law has been posted for you to ignore. What is stopping federal prosecutors from going after sanctuary cities is the lackadaisical attitude of the federal government. I support states rights as applied to protect the rights of the citizens and LPRs of Arizona and other states smart enough to want to combat illegal immigration. You are known for supporting lawlessness and hackery, and it's getting harder and harder for you to justify that.

Edited July 10, 2010 by Sofiyya

[Pooky 3,348]

Trying to paint them as in violation of Federal Laws and blaming Obama for not going after them is nothing more than partisan hackery.

So now the truth is nothing more than partisan hackery? Unbelievable.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

So now the truth is nothing more than partisan hackery? Unbelievable.

For our dear Steven, who is consistant only in that he walks in lockstep with the Obama administration and any Leftist nonsense that can be imagined, to accuse his opposition of partisan hackery is par for the course.

[evli1966 88]

Law enforcement routinely rely on informants to help them nab the larger fish - I suppose in your eyes, those law enforcement officers are violating law by not arresting these individuals for whatever petty crimes they've committed. Sanctuary cities have been around a long time. Trying to paint them as in violation of Federal Laws and blaming Obama for not going after them is nothing more than partisan hackery. There's nothing stopping any federal prosecutor from going after these cities if you truly believe they are breaking the law.

Your correct in that any federal prosecutor could except do you actually believe the DOJ would cross an Obama agenda?

Your correct any admisinstration in the past should have done so which is why this is not a partisan hackery as you call it.

It just so happens the time has come for the people to speak out and want the federal government to keep its promises from the past.

We also want fairness in the law and consistency if you beleieve a state is preventing the federal law from working then all states that do it should be challenged whether they agree with the current administations agenda or not. No cherry picking!!

This is issue is acrossed the political spectrum so it is an issue we have with any politician that partakes in the same path as this prese=ident or the previous ones do.

Petty crimes.

a crime is the crime we have a law and it is to be followed with the equal justice to all.

All crimes have ripple affect but you do not see this; you think it is ok to let the illegal live here because he will tell you who the human trafficar

Well lets say the illegal is living her but needs to steal an identity so he can work and live here; that identity turns out belongs to another person who is finacially ruined who is to blame?

That would be the illegal alien, the federal office that allowed the illegal to remain as an illegal and the federal government.

Yes I know it may be a stretch but this is the type of thing that could happen.

Edited July 10, 2010 by evli1966

[Pooky 3,348]

Sanctuary cities have been around a long time. Trying to paint them as in violation of Federal Laws and blaming Obama for not going after them is nothing more than partisan hackery. There's nothing stopping any federal prosecutor from going after these cities if you truly believe they are breaking the law.

My argument is not with Obama and the Democrat party, just as it was not with BushBaby and the Republican party. My argument is with the Washington machine. Enforcement of Federal immigration laws has been neglected in the main by successive administrations, both Democrat and Republican.

Maybe this time the weight of bi-partisan public opinion can force Washington's hands and we will see substantive action to secure our borders, enforce immigration policy against illegal immigrants, their employers and enablers. It is a faint hope, but this time the tide might just be building enough to make it happen.

Edited July 10, 2010 by Pooky

[Sofiyya 1,687]

In re "petty crimes" and how they do have consequences:

Broken Windows Policing What Is It?

I was talking to the sales manager of a car dealership in a nearby town to where I live when the subject of crime on his car lot came up. He has a problem with auto theft from time to time and relates as how the local police department is not of much help in recovering stolen cars or catching the thieves. He says they as much as told him they dont really care much about solving auto theft cases. These are property crimes and the police are simply spread too thin and have to concentrate on dangerous personal crimes, the ones in which someone is assaulted or killed.

I wondered to my friend if their chief of police has ever heard of "broken windows policing," the theory that stopping petty crimes and misdemeanors will result in reducing more serious crimes. It is the practice of policing by which New York City brought its murder rate from over 2,000 per year to 500 a year when Rudy Giuliani was mayor. Given the attitude of this particular police agency I doubt their chief knows, or perhaps just does not care, about the theory. My car salesmen friend, a young man who says he is thinking about going into law enforcement, also has never heard of the concept.

Since I have run into many people who have never heard of Broken Windows Policing, a theory of law enforcement that has transformed towns and neighborhoods from wretched crime-ridden hell holes into livable communities, I decided to find out how much I know about it. Since one of the purposes of having a blog is to learn new things and the best way to teach yourself something is to write about it, I decided to write about broken windows policing to see what I already know and what more I could learn.

Broken Windows Policing is a theory first introduced by James Q. Wilson and George Kelling in an article they wrote for the March, 1982 edition of The Atlantic Monthly (now The Atlantic). I read it when it was first published and instinctively knew it was something new and fresh (at least to me), bound for future importance. The whole idea may have already been explored by Sir Robert Peel in the 1830s but I was fairly sure Messrs. Wilson and Kelling had hit on something that was going to matter a great deal. I tucked it away in my memory and didnt think about again until it became a matter of considerable public discussion while Rudy Giuliani was mayor of New York City.

The main thrust of Wilson's thesis was that the appearance of disorder in a neighborhood (i.e., "broken windows") sends a subtle message to those inclined to criminal behavior that their behavior will be approved or at least tolerated in this neighborhood. The disorder of the neighborhood says that this is a place where nobody cares what you do, so go for it.

Wilson used the prevalence of broken windows as a metaphor for any condition or element the existence of which would send the message that nobody cares. Allowing people to get away with petty crimes sends the nobody cares message the loudest and clearest. Wilson then speculated that there is an indirect link between petty crime and major crime and that this link is established in two (2) distinct ways.

First, petty crime acts as a gateway to more serious crime. Most criminals who commit major crimes start out with petty crimes. Thus, eliminating social tolerance for petty crimes may stop some petty criminals from becoming major criminals.

Second, those who have already moved on to major crime will also continue to commit petty crimes. Thus, Broken Windows Policing will create greater police contact with those criminals. As a result, focusing on petty crime will snare many major criminals into the same net because suspects of petty crime will be found to have outstanding warrants or to be carrying weapons illegally, or to be in possession of drugs or other contraband.

Broken Windows Policing will reduce major crime by, counter-intuitively and indirectly, focusing on petty crime. Crime overall will be reduced as some petty criminals will be dissuaded from major crime (as well as from petty crime) and many more of those who are not dissuaded or who have already graduated to major crime will be caught, sent to prison, and thus are no longer on the street committing crimes.

Of course, police agencies alone cannot assure that we will reap the benefits of Broken Windows policing. That is dependent on other aspects of the criminal justice system such as a fair and efficient court system that protects the innocent and sends the guilty to prison. As with everything in human experience, politics plays an important role.

The conflict between the liberal mindset of offering excuses for bad behavior and the conservative desire to hold people accountable for their actions is brought front and center whenever policies based upon the theory of Broken Windows Policing are implemented.

There are always practitioners of various schools of social science that will opt for ideas that have been tried repeatedly without any success whatsoever while at the same time heavily criticizing policies that have a proven track record of results. These are the intellectuals of the age who become enamored by complex and intricate conjectures based on illogical assumptions and sometime pure fantasy. They are often quick to denounce as simplistic a straight forward-common sense idea such as Broken Windows Policing. They never understand that just because something is simple when compared to the complex, that does not make it 'simplistic.'

One such academic is Bernard Harcourt, a professor of law at the University of Chicago. Harcourt makes several claims based on statistical studies in his book, Illusion of Order: The False Promise of Broken Windows Policing, to back up his notion that there is no measurable link between neighborhood disorder and the incidence of crime, and that broken windows policing results in numerous negative consequences. Among the contentions made by Harcourt in his book are the following:

No reliable empirical evidence exists that broken windows policing will work;

Policing petty crimes takes police away from other major crimes;

Newtons law of crime "what goes up must come down" is a better explanation for the fall in crime in New York City;

Studies show that moving criminals from disorderly neighborhoods into orderly neighborhoods has a negligible effect on their criminal behavior, as shown in a University of Chicago study called moving to opportunity;

Broken Windows is a cute slogan thats good for marketing but it rests on a faulty theory. There is no reliable evidence that disorder causes crime;

Empirical analysis suggests that disorder and crime do not have a cause and effect relationship and instead have common antecedents in structural disadvantage and lack of neighborhood trust;

Since police resources are not unlimited any focus on petty crime necessarily takes police away from more serious crime;

Hot spots policing, more computer technology, etc., will reap greater rewards and be a wiser expenditure of money.

George Kelling responds to Harcourts charges [the following has been gleaned from various of Professor Kellers writings most of which may be found on the Manhattan Institute website]:

Social science studies provide mixed evidence and will probably never prove the point one way or the other of the link between broken windows policing and serious crime;

Broken windows has always maintained that there is an indirect link between disorder and crime;

Disorder creates fear and leads to weakened social controls and provides conditions where crime flourishes;

It is difficult to establish this in social science studies;

It is crime statistics, above all, that show broken windows works;

Increased enforcement against petty crime increases officer contact with more serious offenders;

Harcourt dismisses the effectiveness of broken windows because he views strict enforcement against petty crimes as police harassment;

Harcourt dismisses the real world data and aggrandizes social science studies that do not support broken windows. He also re-analyzes studies in ways that ensure particular findings [that support his bias];

Harcourt observes that criminally active youths who move out of public housing into more orderly neighborhoods often continue their criminal behavior despite their new surroundings. From this Harcourt concludes that broken windows is disproved. This is silly because no one seriously believes that repeat offenders will change their behavior simply because they move to better surroundings. Broken windows does not predict that they will;

Harcourt is an Ivory-Tower Academic who dismisses the real-world experience of police officers and those condemned to live in violent neighborhoods. These Ivory-Tower Academics should regularly visit these neighborhoods instead of cloaking themselves in the mantle of an empirical scientist producing findings indicating that broken windows has been disproved;

Police dont have time for Harcourts Virtual Reality theories, they do their work in the real world;

The best empirical evidence, all of it ignored by Harcourt and his colleagues, is that the New York Subway System is now an orderly and relatively crime-free system; MacArthur Park in Los Angeles was once a large open-air drug market but is now a place for families and soccer playing; in Newark and Irvington, New Jersey shootings are down 30% in a targeted area.

I particularly like Professor Kellings understanding that social science studies often reach findings and conclusions that any damned fool with a modicum of real-world experience can see to be utter nonsense. The police chief in the town where my car salesman friend works should take note that one of the ways the Newark, New Jersey police reduced the homicide rate in their city was by instituting an auto-theft strike force that worked exclusively on detecting and quickly apprehending auto thieves. It is not surprising that auto theft is one of the gateway crimes that young criminals pass through on their journey to more major crimes such as armed robbery and car jacking.

Edited July 10, 2010 by Sofiyya

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Sanctuary cities are illegal and have been illegal for a long time. No one has to try to paint them as in violation of federal law, the law has been posted for you to ignore. What is stopping federal prosecutors from going after sanctuary cities is the lackadaisical attitude of the federal government. I support states rights as applied to protect the rights of the citizens and LPRs of Arizona and other states smart enough to want to combat illegal immigration. You are known for supporting lawlessness and hackery, and it's getting harder and harder for you to justify that.

Riiiight. Keep telling yourself that. I was hoping one of you would actually define what a sanctuary city means. But since you continue to argue in vagaries, I'll set the record straight:

Sanctuary city is a term given to a city in the United States that follows certain practices that protect illegal immigrants. These practices can be by law (de jure) or they can be by habit (de facto). The term generally applies to cities that do not allow municipal funds or resources to be used to enforce federal immigration laws, usually by not allowing police or municipal employees to inquire about one's immigration status. The designation has no legal meaning.^[1]

States agencies are not required by Federal Law to enforce immigration laws. They are required to cooperate with Federal authorities. For example, a public utilities company doesn't have to check a person's legal status before offering them service. A school is not required to verify legal status before registering a child. Local law enforcement are not required to verify legal status when a citizen dials 911.

Now lets put this in perspective of priorities. In Maricopa County, there are over 130,000 outstanding warrants, yet Sheriff Arpaio is using county resources to raid places like Sizzler, hauling away dishwashers rather than going after the real criminals.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

ALL illegals are criminals. Including the dishwaher doing a job he shouldn't be here to have.

What kind of trust should those of us who, unlike you, don't pick and choose which laws to ignore, have in a system that ignores its own laws? Why have a constitution, a legislature? Why have borders if our leaders don't want to assert national sovereignty? You can't be almost illegal anymore than you can be almost pregnant. And you can't be sometimes for law enforcement when you take an oath to uphold the laws.

Edited July 10, 2010 by Sofiyya

[evli1966 88]

Riiiight. Keep telling yourself that. I was hoping one of you would actually define what a sanctuary city means. But since you continue to argue in vagaries, I'll set the record straight:

States agencies are not required by Federal Law to enforce immigration laws. They are required to cooperate with Federal authorities. For example, a public utilities company doesn't have to check a person's legal status before offering them service. A school is not required to verify legal status before registering a child. Local law enforcement are not required to verify legal status when a citizen dials 911.

Now lets put this in perspective of priorities. In Maricopa County, there are over 130,000 outstanding warrants, yet Sheriff Arpaio is using county resources to raid places like Sizzler, hauling away dishwashers rather than going after the real criminals.

yes lets put it in perspective

----------

http://www.wfaa.com/...n-98145324.html

DALLAS - A Dallas County jailer is facing deportation after she was arrested by federal agents while on the job Friday morning.

Maria Elvia Ross, 31, is suspected of being in the country illegally, and appears to have worked for the county illegally for nearly a decade.

Commissioner John Wiley Price said the news has come as a shock to those at Dallas City Hall. He also said the mistake should have been caught when Ross was originally hired with the county in 2001, which was when Jim Bowles was sheriff.

"That's probably the $64,000 question," Price said. "It happened in a prior administration, you really don't know. I guess at some point in time, something always gets through the cracks."

Ross had extra responsibilities and was on Sheriff Lupe Valdez's quality assurance team, which oversees improvements to sanitation.

"Their job is to make sure that the jail meets all of the safety compliance standards," Price said.

Price said Ross was caught when she applied for a deputy position and had to undergo a second background check.

"Once you are vetted through the process, I'm sure periodically they check," he said. "But, to be able to check that many officers every day, I mean nobody does that."

The commissioner said the county follows strict federal guidelines when it comes to checking immigration status, but called the Ross incident a fluke.

A News 8 investigation uncovered more than 1,000 illegal immigrants were charged with serious crimes and then deported from Dallas County before their cases went to trial. Those inmates were locked up in the same jail system in which Ross was responsible for helping oversee quality control. After the reports, a loophole in the law was closed to ensure those charged face the justice system

Sanctuary city is a term given to a city in the United States that follows certain practices that protect illegal immigrants. These practices can be by law (de jure) or they can be by habit (de facto). The term generally applies to cities that do not allow municipal funds or resources to be used to enforce federal immigration laws, usually by not allowing police or municipal employees to inquire about one's immigration status. = The designation has no legal meaning.

You are correct the current ICE directive does not mandate the cooperation of the local authorities at this time.

It does not forgive passing actual laws that would prevent ICE from working with or obtaining the mandated information required to execute the laws.

Sanctuary Cities/communities that pass laws or encourage the disruption of the enforcement of immigration laws are negligent in their actions to impeded federal laws.

because they do this and has been happening is all the more reason they should be challneged before an AZ law that has not been implented is challenged.