All together we are not sure if the power trips, and ring-rights between President Obama and Supreme Court Justice Scalia can get any better. For those who lost a chunk of change on the recent Manny “Pacman” Pacquiao versus Timothy Bradley showdown in Las Vegas we suggest that you perhaps look into the fight game starting up in Washington D.C.
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia jabbed and took swipes at President Barack Obama’s immigration policies today and even questioned whether states would have joined the United States at all given today’s ruling on Arizona’s immigration law.
In his comments from the bench, which expanded on his written minority opinion, Scalia blasted Obama’s decision to stop deporting many young illegal immigrants who were brought to the United States as children.
“The issue is a stark one: Are the sovereign states at the mercy of the federal executive’s refusal to enforce the nation’s immigration laws? A good way of answering that question is to ask: Would the states conceivably have entered into the union if the Constitution itself contained the court’s holding?” Scalia asked. “If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign state.”
And unfortunate as it may be, Justice Scalia is spot on with his assessment of Barack Obama’s politicking. We do not believe that for one, Arizona would have become a state; furthermore, with the backlash that has been created by most, if not all of Obama’s policy decisions, we wonder if the U.S. Constitution would ever have been ratified in the first place.
Scalia effectively charged the administration with fibbing with its explanation for not deporting DREAM Act – eligible immigrants as one of discretion in handling scarce prosecutorial resources.
“After this case was argued and while it was under consideration, the secretary of Homeland Security announced a program exempting from immigration enforcement some 1.4 million illegal immigrants,” Scalia said. “The husbanding of scarce enforcement resources can hardly be the justification for this, since those resources will be eaten up by the considerable administrative cost of conducting the nonenforcement program, which will require as many as 1.4 million background checks and biennial rulings on requests for dispensation.
“To say, as the court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of federal immigration law that the president declines to enforce boggles the mind,” he added.
We find that statement by Justice Scalia as one for the history books and compare it to a severe knockdown in our fight night analogy. Seriously the word “fibbing” is brought the light full-scale about Obama’s inexcusable actions.
Obama, in his statement explaining he was pleased that the court struck down much of the law, continued to back his administration’s decision not to deport DREAM Act – eligible illegal immigrants.
“We will continue to enforce our immigration laws by focusing on our most important priorities like border security and criminals who endanger our communities, and not, for example, students who earn their education,” he said.
The DREAM Act, which has not been enacted by Congress, would provide a pathway to citizenship for some illegal immigrant children who go to college or join the military. Obama’s new policy regarding so-called DREAM’ers was in response to Congress’ inaction on the bill.
Obama also called on Congress to act on comprehensive immigration reform.
It is precisely here that we have a monumentous problem with Barack Obama. In government – not politics – there needs to be a team work approach to this kind of legislation. In no way should a president be saying “I call on Congress to act on comprehensive immigration reform;” when in reality the Congress couldn’t possibly be any more accommodating to the president.
Let’s all remember the “One” who prophesied that “…we have an inactive federal government…” in matters relating to immigration policy. So who is it Mr. President, you or the Congress who has already passed legislation regarding the DREAM Act in December 2011?
Portions of this writing came from the Roll Call staff and can be found by reading more here.
While a black preacher told 100 immigration protesters that incarcerated blacks and detained immigrants faced similar challenges, Jesse Morgan stood to one side of the May Day demonstrators, holding a large sign that read “Radical Queers Resist.” (See Madison on Factions.)
Although the rally was geared toward illegal immigrants, the 24-year-old Georgia State sociology major said gays can relate, too, because they often face discrimination. (We are trying to show that everyone in America faces discrimination at one time or another.)
Over the last several years, May Day rallies in the United States have been dominated by activists pushing for a path to citizenship for the estimated 11 million people in the country illegally. But since 2006, when hundreds of thousands took to the streets in cities across America, the rallies have gotten smaller, less focused and increasingly splintered by any number of groups with a cause.
In New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Oakland, Calif., May Day protests were dominated by Occupy Wall Street activists, a sign of how far the immigration has fallen off the radar, unable to compete with the economy.
Immigration activists say they are not worried about decreasing numbers at rallies because their focus the last few years has been more on getting eligible immigrants to become U.S. citizens and vote.
And yet activists acknowledge the threat to illegal immigrants may be stronger than ever with the U.S. Supreme Court considering Arizona’s tough, controversial crackdown. In 2010, Arizona passed a law that, among other things,
required allows police to ask for immigration papers from anyone they stop or arrest and suspect is in the country illegally. The Obama administration has challenged the law.
The court’s ruling could have a far-reaching effect on a handful of states, including Georgia, that have similar laws.
Madrigal, who came from Mexico with his parents when he was 9, is applying for scholarships and doing fundraisers in attempt to raise $59,000 to go to Hampshire College in Massachusetts.
“I’m not asking for a handout, free housing or health care. I just want a chance,” he said.
Since the last major immigration reform in 1986, which extended amnesty to millions here illegally, activism has ebbed and flowed.
Proposition 187, passed by California voters in 1994, prohibited illegal immigrants from using social services, including health care and education. The law was eventually thrown out, but it angered many Latinos and helped make California a solidly Democratic state.
In 2005, a bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives that would have criminalized anyone who helped illegal immigrants also had a galvanizing effect. For several months in 2006, hundreds of thousands rallied across the country.
The U.S. Senate responded, passing a reform bill that would have given a path to citizenship for millions here illegally. As is often the norm with immigration, however, the result was paralysis.
As years have turned to decades, immigration activists have had to accept the reality that it could be years or even decades before the issue is dealt with by Congress.
President Barack Obama’s election win in 2008 represented arguably the best hope in a generation for so-called comprehensive reform: combining better border security and a crackdown on undocumented workers with a way for millions here illegally to come out of the shadows and stay.
However, even with Democrats controlling both the House and Senate, they couldn’t pass immigration reform as health care reform and the economy took center stage. After Democrats took a beating in the 2010 elections, immigration reform had become all but taboo.
“We have been given so much lip service that our lips are sore,” said Jorge-Mario Cabrera, a spokesman for the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights in Los Angeles.
As for us here at The Thinker, we see the situation as almost completely different. One should never make campaign promises that they in fact, have no legitimate control over.
It will take a lot more comprises on part of the “illegal alien” sub-culture in America as well as the Americas before any comprehensive reform is enacted.
Just as the U.S. Supreme Court begins to hear arguments about Arizona’s hard-line immigration law, a study pops up that says illegal immigration from Mexico is a diminishing problem. Most of us hope that this is the case; however, given this is an election year and with so many failed Obama administration policies and pure unadulterated not even trying to rectify the situation we believe this situation to be one of the characteristics of natural demography.
According to a report released by the Pew Hispanic Center, the massive wave of Mexicans entering this country illegally is subsiding and a rising counter-current of Mexicans returning to their homeland has brought net migration to a statistical equilibrium.
This trend began about five years ago, according to the report, and the number of undocumented Mexican nationals in the U.S. has fallen from 7 million to 6.1 million. At the same time, the number returning – or, as Mitt Romney would put it, “self-deporting” – has jumped significantly.
One big factor in this is something demographers have anticipated for years.
Starting in the 1970s, birth control became much more widely available in Mexico. Where once Mexicans had one of the world’s highest birthrates, that rate has dropped to a level almost on par with the United States. As a result, the cohort of young Mexicans who might want to head north for work has grown smaller.
Arizona and several other states argue that they need to be able to conduct their own crackdowns on illegal immigration because the feds under President Obama’s leadership have failed to do the job. Theirs is a states-rights argument. Obama administration lawyers will insist this is a usurpation of the federal responsibility to set immigration policy. They argue that targeted enforcement, not random stops of Latinos to ask for their identification papers, is the best approach to the challenge. (Say nothing of the truth which is…the Obama administration has done nothing that they alluded to in 2008.)
Either way this matter is argued, let’s just set the record straight. Arizona, Utah, Texas, New Mexico, California, Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and South Carolina have become victims because of the lack of the U.S. federal government slack, and “…the U.S. federal government is inactive with the failed Immigration policy…” as spoken in public by President Barack Obama.
It may be a states rights argument; however, what has the lack of due diligence performed by the Fed’s invariably cost the individual states albeit, in commerce, education demands, language demands, printing, voting as well as the refusal of the illegal aliens to get necessary documentation, and the always formidable special interest groups who act as though it is their right to make demands has been enormous.
There was little change in the basic demographics of those handed over to Mexican authorities from 2005 to 2010, except that a somewhat higher share now (14%) report they live with an unmarried partner, compared with past years. Also, in 2010, three-quarters (74%) said they do not speak English, but that proportion declined from 2005, when it was 93%
Therefore our question remains unanswered only in part however; this current study and reporting seems rather a political ploy by the Obama administration to make those numbers look as enticing as possible, yet there are reports out in the public that suggest that President Obama may have exploited some of his numbers. Like it or not, it certainly is not the first time Obama has lied to gain for himself and it certainly will not be the last.
A federal judge has temporarily blocked yet another provision of Arizona’s controversial SB 1070 immigration measure from being enforced. The 2010 law made it a crime for a person to block traffic when seeking or offering work on streets.
U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled Wednesday that groups who challenged the provision to succeed in proving the measure violates were likely the 1st Amendment. Immigrant and civil rights groups had argued that the law targeted day laborers’ speech, not traffic problems; however, this is only a diversion if you’ve ever been there. (Special interest groups, La Raza, etc.)
Bolton rightly noted that state officials already have a slew of civil penalties on the books that can be used against individuals who violate traffic laws or create road hazards.
The ruling shouldn’t come as a surprise. On Feb. 21, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to reinstate Redondo Beach‘s anti-solicitation ordinance. The high court let stand a lower court ruling that found the city’s attempt to stop day laborers from seeking work on street corners was so broad that it was nothing short of an unconstitutional attack on free speech. Redondo Beach had spent more than 20 years defending its anti-solicitation ordinance.
No one disputes that cities or states should be able to prosecute those who endanger public safety or create a nuisance. But communities should avail themselves of laws already in place that target jaywalking, trespassing or traffic violations instead of enacting new ones that result only in long and expensive legal battles. That is precisely what the attitude has been in our country since before the 12 million illegal aliens invaded. Moreover, when there is a new issue to deal with, one simply does not revert to old and impractical methods.
For those who do not work or live in areas where huge numbers of illegal immigrants congregate during the morning hours perhaps setting up an example of what it looks like would be proper.
Say it is six o’clock in the morning (6:00am) and for some earlier and other’s later, and you are all decked out in your “Dress for Success” clothes driving to work. You’ve already had your morning cupper’ but since today is Monday, you’ve decided to visit the local Starbucks for that heavenly Hazelnut Latte you’ve been craving since last night.
Once having arrived at Starbucks there are numerous “cat-calls,” whistles, and obscene sounding Spanish remarks aimed directly at you. You look back and at the corner are who knows…maybe 50 to 100 illegal’s waiting for something; nonetheless they are still creating a nuisance and just a wee bit of sweat begins to roll down you back.
Before reaching the door at Starbucks you happen to notice one of the people cover his nostril with one finger and being puffed-up and …there she blows! Snot being led by the biggest wad of nose collection you’ve ever seen. You continue and whilst waiting for that coveted latte you glance over and just happen to notice and woman between a fence and the side of a gas station holding two infant babies when at once she stoops only to leave a puddle with steam and then she’s up again intermingling with the others and you happen to notice that she is now directing another female toward the puddling area.
After a rather rude start of your day you’ve decided something must be done about this cesspool corner. It’s not that people are going there to catch public transportation; in fact, you come to understand that only about 20 percent of the day-working individuals are actually going to procure work. The eighty (80%) percent of others are hoping for that job but if you’re not there, then you’ll never get the work – or so the saying goes.
What you soon find out is that these are coordinated stops along the illegal-supporting-companies supply lines. They honestly could care less about your property…”no my problem” they’ll say and by the way, does anyone know what it costs to live in Redondo Beach, California these days?
Moreover, this is not even close to an issue of an “unconstitutional attack on free speech;” unless you are the older male or female who lives within an area where they smartly don’t make pick-ups. Yet, all the same, it is certainly not like a group of civilized individuals standing politely on a street corner. What we have is an unruly, mass of people that won’t fit on the corner anymore and now they’re spreading out and down the street…oh! Did I mention being in the street causing havoc? People in Redondo Beach don’t hate people…they hate the thought of killing them by unintended consequences.
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider rolling back university affirmative action programs, re-entering a racially charged debate by accepting an appeal from a rejected white applicant to the University of Texas.
The appeal takes aim at a 2003 Supreme Court decision that said universities could continue to consider the race of their applicants to help ensure campus diversity.
We will not dignify this debate by taking a position as to whether affirmative action is racially charged; moreover, hiding this and other programs under the unbrella of “diversity” is really insulting to the reader.
Universities have had the court’s blessing for affirmative action since the 1978 Regents of the University of California v. Bakke decision gave race-conscious admissions a limited endorsement. With five of the nine current justices openly skeptical about racial classifications, today’s action suggests the court at a minimum will scale back diversity programs.
Here is what is at issue: Whether a university’s use of race to grant admission violates the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection?
On September 15, 2011, Ms. Fisher filed her petition for writ of certiorari, which Mountain States Legal Foundation supported with an amicus curiae brief on October 19, 2011.
Ms. Fisher of Sugar Land, who graduated in the top 12 percent of her class, Rachel Multer and Ms. Michalewicz of Buda, who graduated in the top 11 percent of their class, applied for but were denied admission.
In April 2008, they sued the University and its officials in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas in Austin, alleging that they were denied the right to compete for admission on an equal footing with minority students in violation of the Constitution’s equal protection guarantee. On August 17, 2009, the district court ruled in favor of the University of Texas based upon the Supreme Court’s holding in Grutter.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case on race-conscious admission policies in the Texas public-university system. Abigail Noel Fisher sued the University of Texas in 2008 when her application was rejected when less academically qualified minority students were accepted. Ms. Fisher argues the race-based admissions policy violated her rights under the 14th Amendment, specifically the equal protection clause which says no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Of course we understand that Ms.Fisher at 12 percent of her class, whilst Rachel Multer and Ms. Michalewicz were in the top 11 percent. However, if the University of Texas is indeed using this as their yard stick measure, then persons of 13 percent and higher should be willing to wait rather than to be accepted under some ridiculous “diversity” constraint. Therefore hopefully one can easily see where we will not dignify this issue by weighing in such a ridiculous set of claims.