The federal judge in Arizona blocked certain portions of the Arizona law because they impose an addtional burden on the federal government that it is unwilling to assume, or it duplicates a federal provision that the government is unwilling to enforce, or it inconveniences the illegals themselves.
Bottom line, Eric Holder and the President win by continuing their "hands-off, do-nothing" policy toward illegals, and the citizens of Arizona through their rightful legislative process lose. In fact, all of America loses except the Administration.
When there is a federal law, impacting the security and economy of this country, that no one is willing to enforce because it's inconvenient, where do we turn? Congress? DOJ? President? The people?
Looks like it falls to us. Arizona did what needed to be done, and we need to support their actions. This judge found for the feds, but he is a federal judge with that perspective. Bet the results would have been different with a State judge.
Interestingly, no Constitutional issues were cited, just existing laws and preferences.
───
For more information on my coaching and educational programs and services, visit my website stevehoffacker.com, or go to my other blog homesalesinsights.com for additional sales tips, insights, and commentary. Listen to my free podcast messages at Steve Hoffacker's Happenings.
Steve Hoffacker - Consultant, Coach, Author, Blogger, Photographer, Motivator, Teacher, & Strategist - for Realtors, Real Estate Sales Professionals, Home Builders, New Home Salespeople, Entrepreneurs, Small Business Owners, and Independent Sales Representatives.
© Steve Hoffacker, 2010. All Rights Reserved.
Steve...happy to read your take on today's misjudgement mistake; Where to go from here when spokesmen state that this ruling is standing against "lawlessness"--as it is proposed by Arizona. So tiring to hear that no-one should have to carry ID at all times. OK so any time I may be stopped by law enforcement, I can say "I don't have to carry any ID with me--you can no longer ask me". Right !
How & why is everything a racial incident ! Sad, Sad, at first I thought that she [the Judge] would at least support the Law, instead it seems that to prevent a possible situation- the written law must be modified.
Thanks for bringing this up in such a timely fashion.
Barb & Sal
Steve,
Rush Limbaugh had a great comment today..."if you're picked up by the police in Arizona, just say "no habla Espanol." They won't be able to touch you.
Making light of a very serious matter.
Rich
We have sex slaves and killings due to illegals and we get this type of decision. The problem is serious.
Congratulations this post is now featured in the Silent Majority Group of Active Rain.
Federal judges not using case law but deciding based upon current federal laws that are not being enforced - where is the justice in that???
Barb and Sal,
Thank you for your response. We all have to carry ID - except those now given a pass by the Administration. The federal law says that an immigration officer can stop anyone without a warrant and withoiut cause and that they must produce the documents. That is, when they are allowed to enforce it. :)
Steve
Rich,
Good one. :)
Steve
Tim,
Serious on its way to much, much worse. Thank you, Mr. President and Eric. :)
Steve
Nick,
Thanks for the feature. :)
Steve
Nick,
This is the new judiciary - making up law as they go. :)
Steve
So, I guess that the states should no longer enforce drug laws (there are similar federal drug laws) or any other laws that might parallel federal laws... Hopefully the Appeals Court will overturn... but I think it is going to the Supremes.
Maybe the state of Arizona should sue the Federal Government for the money to enforce the border themselves? Of course it would be borrowed money.
This constant disregard for law abiding citizens trying to protect themselves from illegals is unbelievable! How can "the government" think hard working, tax paying Americans will just sit by and be ignored. Why do they fight to do the wrong thing. It's just baffling and stupid. WE WILL TAKE BACK AMERICA through our voting process as good citizens do - it's just the waiting that's driving me crazy.
Steve - I do believe that the judge passed the buck on this. She did not rule against the specific issues, but rather refered them to a different court. One thing I heard pointed out, while the ruling blocks requiring police from checking id if they suspect the person might be illegal, it does not require them not to address the question. Of course, by voiding the requirement for non-citizens to carry id (does this also void the federal mandate that requires non-citizens to carry proof of their legal presence in the country at all times) it makes the identification a bit more difficult.
Featured in Tea Party and reblogged.
I agree with Mike Saunders that she just passed the buck. Either way it is no good though.
I heard Sheriff Arpiao say that no matter what the decision they would be continuing to enforce the law they passed three years ago. So, even after this goes to the Supreme Court, and it will, the other law will still be in force.
The Ninth Circuit Court is extremely liberal, not much chance of any help there. Lane's right, this is going to the Supreme Court, if the accept the case.
I'm with Lane. If state law is pre-empted by federal law, then let the feds deal with the drug dealers violating federal narcotics laws. If a federally insured bank gets robbed, let the FBI take care of it - local police shouldn't get "involved" with such a federal matter. If an IRS building or federal courthouse catches on fire, let the army or national guard show up and take care of the problem. If a fugitive crosses state lines, the local cops need to stay out of it since this is now a "federal matter."
Pretty ridiculous. Where did this judge get her law license from - on the interent?
Steve, it just keeps getting more outrageous. Have you seen the latest from these thugs, aka federal government?
National Review:
According to an internal U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services memo going the rounds of Capitol Hill and obtained by National Review, the agency is considering ways in which it could enact "meaningful immigration reform absent legislative action" - that is, without the consent of the American people through a vote in Congress.
"This memorandum offers administrative relief options to . . . reduce the threat of removal for certain individuals present in the United States without authorization," it reads."
"The memo claims that there are no limits to USCIS's ability to use deferred action, but warns that using this power indiscriminately would be "controversial, not to mention expensive." The memo suggests using deferred action to exempt "particular groups" from removal"
Doesn't this memo prove that this administration is WILLFULLY violating their oath of office?
Georgia, isn't that how they got through the budget. This administration has the majority to get anything they want, so why are they NOT putting issues to a vote?
Very good point Lois! obama has admited he doesn't have the votes for amnesty for 15-25 million lawbreakers to become citizens.
Isn't it mindboggling that those illegals marching in OUR STREETS, waving THEIR FLAGS, are openly SPITTING ON OUR CONSTITUTION, LAWS, FLAG and every CITIZEN WHO HAS DIED FOR OUR FREEDOM?!!