Obama suing one of his own states?

[_cambreckenridge]

I just think that if the federal government decides to let all the immigrants in, it should have to pay for it. I've heard people opine, "Well if you live in AZ, than that should be your burden to bear." This attitude and it's outcome is exactly what the founding fathers wanted to avoid when drafting the Constitution or choosing to not form a union at all.

I also think that if a judge wants to legislate from the bench to ignore immigration law saying, "Americans are too selfish and should share with those who don't have, that judge should have to fund the immigrants out of his own personal money and perhaps even his professional status." It's easy to give away somebody elses land, money, and profession and I see nothing noble about it.[/quote]

If the fed gov't wants to require a state to do something, it would ideally have it codified in federal law with provisions for funding. (That is why I deplored the proposed "devolution" concept of N Gingrich in the 90s - sure, it would pare down the size of the fed gov't, but would toss a huge amount of functional requirements at each state without a hint as to how the states would fund them)

Immigration into the US is a huge issue that needs some hugely major adjustments, in my opinion, because we don't have the same wide open expanses of land & resources we did way back when, and immigration should be a legally conducted process. Our immigration policies evict productive, capable foreigners and admit others who have little or nothing beneficial. (I'm not talking about desperate refugees here, that's another issue). States & the fed gov't, in enacting laws, do have to face challenges when others think their laws are unconstitutional. Ultimately, we are at the mercy of the members of the Supreme Court. That's the way the system is set up.

Other countries have extremely restrictive immigration policies designed with the overall well-being of the nation in mind. in my opinion, the US needs more of that attitude in today's world.

(Personally, I think the arduous process of penning the Constitution intentionally left much room for adaptation of future generations and changing situations. All those many men involved were savvy enough to know that the nation would be very different in future centuries. State's rights, in my opinion, must be viewed from an altered perspective today than the view then that was just a few years away from the states having been separate, independently granted colonies with widely varying charters.)

[_Brackite]

Here is what Kevin Graham wrote about Arizona's 1070, From another Thread here:

No, you can blame the constitution. The Justice Dept had no choice but to bring a suit against it because it is so obviously unconstitutional. Like I said before, conservative pundits agree so this isn't a matter of Liberal politics, it is a constitutional matter and only those most ignorant of the constitution (Liberal or Conservative) are complaining about the suit.

Period.

viewtopic.php?p=344019#p344019

[_moksha]

If Arizona had instituted its own tariff, would Republicans object? Perhaps even demand that a suit be brought against Arizona?

[_krose]

Why shouldn't the individual states have the right to enforce their borders if they have the responsibility to provide education and healthcare to those who enter in? The federal government doesn't fund medicaid correct? Most prisons seem to be funded by the states, another burden upon state taxpayers. If the federal government wants to let everyone in and refuse to enforce the border than let them, but the self appointed superior moral people allowing this should have to personally pay for it, not a democratic people who have voted that they do not wish to assume the burden.

These comments are based on a flawed premise, which is that "the federal government wants to let everyone in and refuse[s] to enforce the border." There is no evidence of that, either during the past two years or the eight previous. Certainly the US Congress has shown that it is unable to agree on any new solutions, but that's not the same thing.

Regarding Medicaid, it's a federal program operated by each state. At least 50% of the funding comes from the federal government (more for poorer states) in the form of matching funds. Any state can opt out of Medicaid if it wants; Arizona was actually the last state to opt in.

Also, illegal immigrants are not eligible for Medicaid assistance. From the guidelines: "Your child may be eligible for coverage if he or she is a U.S. citizen or a lawfully admitted immigrant, even if you are not (however, there is a 5-year limit that applies to lawful permanent residents)."

[_ajax18]

These comments are based on a flawed premise, which is that "the federal government wants to let everyone in and refuse[s] to enforce the border." There is no evidence of that, either during the past two years or the eight previous.

Congress is part of the federal government correct. No decision seems like the same results as deciding to not enforce the border. The ability of one to enter and work in the country illegally seems like evidence to me. Could the federal government stop illegal immigration if it wanted to do so? At the very least they could penalize employers who continue to take advantage of the cheap labor. I'd include George Bush's proposal to grant amnesty to those who broke the law and came illegally anyway among the policies our federal government has instituted that show it's unwillingness to enforce the border.

Regarding Medicaid, it's a federal program operated by each state. At least 50% of the funding comes from the federal government (more for poorer states) in the form of matching funds. Any state can opt out of Medicaid if it wants; Arizona was actually the last state to opt in.

It's still against the law to refuse someone at the emergency room. Illegal immigrants and the poverty imported with them inevitably cause all kinds of problems. In my view these problems should belong to the companies who benefit from their cheap labor. But somehow those problems always come back to the people living next to them.

Few things upset me more than illegal immigration and those who try to profit from it at their neighbors expense.

[_krose]

Congress is part of the federal government correct. No decision seems like the same results as deciding to not enforce the border. The ability of one to enter and work in the country illegally seems like evidence to me. Could the federal government stop illegal immigration if it wanted to do so? At the very least they could penalize employers who continue to take advantage of the cheap labor. I'd include George Bush's proposal to grant amnesty to those who broke the law and came illegally anyway among the policies our federal government has instituted that show it's unwillingness to enforce the border.

Well, I would definitely not agree that an unwillingness to compromise enough to arrive at a workable solution is the same thing as wanting to let every immigrant in.

It's still against the law to refuse someone at the emergency room.

Yes, but that's another subject entirely, unrelated to the Medicaid you mentioned before. It adds to the cost of care overall, but I really don't think we want the alternative, where a hospital could refuse to offer life-saving care to someone in need.

Could the federal government stop illegal immigration if it wanted to do so?

Of course. It's just a matter of how draconian and barbaric we want to be, and how much money we are willing to spend on the problem. We could build a 50-foot wall all around the country, with armed drones patrolling both borders and both shores, programmed to shoot anyone who crosses or comes ashore, and then execute anyone we catch who made it through. That would stop it.

Seriously, I think the best answer is to address the problem at its root, which is the demand for cheap, exploitable labor. Aggressive prosecution of employers who hire illegals would go a long way in that regard, but that would also require a much better ID system. Of course, people continue to say that there are jobs "Americans just won't do." That's mierda del toro. The actual fact is that there are jobs that Americans are not willing to do for the wages offered.

[_ajax18]

Aggressive prosecution of employers who hire illegals would go a long way in that regard, but that would also require a much better ID system.

I'm with you on this. In my experience, even the most obvious forgery of a card seems to fly in construction jobs I worked. It sure looked like there was an unwllingness to penalize the employers who were profitting from it.

Of course, people continue to say that there are jobs "Americans just won't do." That's mierda del toro. The actual fact is that there are jobs that Americans are not willing to do for the wages offered.

Now you're talking. That was the most angry I've ever been at George Bush was when he said this. He knew better. But the charges of racism and xenophobia from the left haven't really helped the situation either in my view. It's true. I never wanted my country to become northern Latin America. I prefer my own culture. We haven't had excess land for some time now. We all saw it coming for well over 30 years. Yet it practically takes loosing the country before enough people will wake up and do something about it.

And it does seem to me that Obama personally would like to let all immigrants in if he could do so and get reelected. And I'm sure it would be my tax dollars funding it, not his. The new immigrants won't be applying for licenses to practice law and they won't be competing in his profession.

[_Eric]

Minorities in my Waterpark

Racist xenophobe.

[_Brackite]

Here is the latest News about this:


Appeals Court Rules Against Arizona Law:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/12/us/12 ... .html?_r=1

[_Buffalo]

The dude's logic is certainly irrefutable, especially at the end where he used the "first they came for the Jews" quote in an effort to scare us into believing that Obama will be coming after us average citizens to put us away.

After all, it follows perfectly well that suing a state legislature and governor for usurping a function of the federal government (making and enforcing immigration law) is just the beginning of a slippery slope that will eventually end in law-abiding white folks being carted off to the gas showers.

Don't confuse the conspiracy theorists with reality.