Half of Americans oppose Obama's immigration lawsuit

[JohnSmith2007 353]

No more so than the Bush administration....

So that makes it right?

[Pooky 3,876]

Populism Political expediency should never trump our beloved Constitution.

Just a few small repairs

So, when the judge rules in Arizona's favour, are you still going to speak out against the law?

[Atencio 43]

You're not making any sense. The OP demonstrates that the Arizona law is popular. The Obama Administration is challenging the law on constitutional grounds. If the court upholds the law as constitutional, you can giggle with elation. Fretting over the DOJ challenging the constitutionality of this law is just blowing hot air.

Whether it is unconstitutional or not I find it repulsive that Obama uses this tactic to attack Arizona's law but doesn't seem to care about "preeminent authority" when border states are drowning in supplying health, educational, welfare, and incarceration costs from something that the Federal government should be taking care of.

Such #######, you can't doing nothing about illegal immigrants because that is our job, but we don't feel like doing anything about it. Mexico also suing Arizona sure has no problem having the same laws on the books for their southern neighbors.

[Atencio 43]

So that makes it right?

Even Regan, the Republicans "wet dream" President kissed illegal alien butts. They all irritate me on this issue.

Give me Tom Tancredo any day.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Finally, someone in the press room gets it! If Obama is so concerned about states bowing to federal supremacy, then why doesn't he have a bug in his bonnet about sanctuary cities? Why? Because, rather than acting on his oath to uphold the law, he agrees with them not doing so. But, poor Robbie can't say what we all know to be true . . .

[evli1966 88]

Finally, someone in the press room gets it! If Obama is so concerned about states bowing to federal supremacy, then why doesn't he have a bug in his bonnet about sanctuary cities? Why? Because, rather than acting on his oath to uphold the law, he agrees with them not doing so. But, poor Robbie can't say what we all know to be true . . .

surprised Steve didn't try his tempered with the constitution BS.

Yo Steve maybe you can answer the reporters questions since the White House can not or will not.

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

Whether it is unconstitutional or not I find it repulsive that Obama uses this tactic to attack Arizona's law but doesn't seem to care about "preeminent authority" when border states are drowning in supplying health, educational, welfare, and incarceration costs from something that the Federal government should be taking care of.

Such #######, you can't doing nothing about illegal immigrants because that is our job, but we don't feel like doing anything about it. Mexico also suing Arizona sure has no problem having the same laws on the books for their southern neighbors.

You find it repulsive standing up for the Constitution? Interesting.

[Pooky 3,876]

surprised Steve didn't try his tempered with the constitution BS.

Yo Steve maybe you can answer the reporters questions since the White House can not or will not.

He won't because he's rather selective with what he wants the Constitution to over-ride

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

Finally, someone in the press room gets it! If Obama is so concerned about states bowing to federal supremacy, then why doesn't he have a bug in his bonnet about sanctuary cities?

You don't have to be the President of the U.S. to challenge the constitutionality of state or local laws.

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

He won't because he's rather selective with what he wants the Constitution to over-ride

Do any of you have any legal precedent that shows that sanctuary cities are in violation of any Federal Laws? Feel free to cite a reliable source that indicates so. Keep in mind, sanctuary cities have been around for a long time.

[evli1966 88]

Do any of you have any legal precedent that shows that sanctuary cities are in violation of any Federal Laws? Feel free to cite a reliable source that indicates so. Keep in mind, sanctuary cities have been around for a long time.

Actually harboring Illegal activities such as allowing Illegal aliens to reside without intervention of the law.

I would think this would be aiding the violation of the already in place immigration laws.

Aiding and abedding criminal activities is a a criminal act.

Just becasue people have been buying and using narcotics for ages doesn't make it legal.

[Pooky 3,876]

Do any of you have any legal precedent that shows that sanctuary cities are in violation of any Federal Laws? Feel free to cite a reliable source that indicates so. Keep in mind, sanctuary cities have been around for a long time.

How about this one:

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 requires local governments to cooperate with the Department of Homeland Security and report illegal aliens. However, over 29 sanctuaries in California alone have policies that prevent local agencies from reporting them.

Link

[evli1966 88]

here you go steve

http://michellemalkin.com/category/immigration/sanctuary-cities/ when you allow a criminal to act unhibited you are responsible for those action especially if it was your duty to stop them.

Despite a 1996 federal law [the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act ( IIRIRA )] that requires local governments to cooperate with Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), many large urban cities (and some small) have adopted so-called "sanctuary policies." Generally, sanctuary policies instruct city employees not to notify the federal government of the presence of illegal aliens living in their communities. The policies also end the distinction between legal and illegal immigration--so illegal aliens often benefit from city services too.

http://www.ojjpac.org/sanctuary.asp

[Pooky 3,876]

You find it repulsive standing up for the Constitution? Interesting.

When the Judge finds in favour of Arizona, will you then support AZ SB 1070?

[Atencio 43]

You find it repulsive standing up for the Constitution? Interesting.

You like cherry picking comments out of context do you?

Intelligent way to prove your point. Well not really. Now why don't you read what I wrote again

and then add a more insightful response.