Advertisement

Archive for Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Judge blocks parts of Arizona immigration law

July 28, 2010

Advertisement

— A federal judge on Wednesday blocked the most controversial elements of Arizona’s new immigration law, thrilling the law’s opponents, dismaying its advocates and setting the stage for more legal battles in the future.

Opponents of Arizona State Bill 1070 celebrate Wednesday outside the Capitol in Phoenix.

Opponents of Arizona State Bill 1070 celebrate Wednesday outside the Capitol in Phoenix.

“We would have liked to have seen it all upheld, but a temporary injunction is not the end of it,” said Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the legislation in April. “I look at this as a little bump in the road.”

The governor said she was looking forward to getting started on the appeals process. “Jan Brewer is not a quitter,” she said.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton halted implementation of the parts of the law that require police to determine the immigration status of people they stop and think are in the country illegally. She also forbade the state from charging anyone with failure to possess immigration documents, a crime under the new law.

In her 36-page decision, Bolton wrote that the measure would have hamstrung the federal government’s efforts to enforce immigration law.

“The federal government’s ability to enforce its policies and achieve its objectives will be undermined by the state’s enforcement of statutes that interfere with federal law,” she wrote.

The law’s supporters, who contended it was needed to stop illegal immigrants from coming to Arizona, vowed a swift appeal.

Immigrant-rights groups were ebullient. “It means justice will truly prevail,” said Lydia Guzman, president of Somos America, or We Are America.

Phoenix Vice Mayor Michael Nowakowski, an opponent of the measure, told reporters outside the courthouse that the ruling was “a victory for individuals who say the federal law is the federal law.”

Bolton’s ruling found that the Obama administration was likely to prevail at trial in proving that the provisions requiring police to determine immigration status and immigrants to carry documents, along with two other provisions of the sweeping law, were an unconstitutional attempt by Arizona to regulate immigration. Arizona is expected to immediately appeal the decision to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

Comments

Flap Doodle 4 years, 4 months ago

"The judge also put on hold a part of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times..." That's been a federal law for decades.

Jimo 4 years, 4 months ago

There are multiple categories of legal immigrants who are NOT required to have "papers" at all let alone cart them around while carrying out Arizona's suspect activities such as walking the dog or riding a bicycle around the block.

Jimo 4 years, 4 months ago

There are multiple categories of legal immigrants who are NOT required to have "papers" at all let alone cart them around while carrying out Arizona's suspect activities such as walking the dog or riding a bicycle around the block.

scott3460 4 years, 4 months ago

Next move, Arizona. It would be nice to see them go after the cheat employers who hire illegal immigrants to the detriment of our citizens, but I suspect we will not see that happening.

appleaday 4 years, 4 months ago

There are already laws that require employers to keep proof of citizenship on file on all employees. The fines for not doing so can be huge. But, you're right, they probably won't be enforced -- might put some corrupt corporations out of business!

beatrice 4 years, 4 months ago

There are tough laws in the state against businesses who knowingly violate state laws. The law states that in AZ a business can be fined for knowingly hiring undocumented workers, and even lose its license for repeat offenses. The rules on keeping proof on file is enforced.

jafs 4 years, 4 months ago

Then how are there so many illegal aliens there - I assume they're working somewhere?

beatrice 4 years, 4 months ago

Actually, many have left the state before this failed law was signed, and many work as day laborers, getting paid in cash.

jaywalker 4 years, 4 months ago

Not shocked this judge made this ruling. Oh well, AZ, guess you get to keep losing billions every year.

beatrice 4 years, 4 months ago

Got a citation on the billions lost every year in AZ, or was it just a careless and gross exaggeration?

jaywalker 4 years, 4 months ago

You live there, bea, you really that out of touch with your won state?

beatrice 4 years, 4 months ago

I can't believe you just put up a link to FAIR. They are the organization behind this nonsense, and their numbers are beyond bias. This is almost as bad as the time Tom cited The Onion on one of his arguments.

Even exaggerated numbers say $1.3 billion a year, not "billions." Of course, costs are never shown how they are further offset through taxes paid (sales, property, vehicle, gas, utilities, etc...).

It is an exaggeration, just like Brewer's saying that the vast majority of people crossing the border illegally are involved in the illegal drug and gun trades.

This is a federal issue, not a state issue.

jaywalker 4 years, 4 months ago

'Cept the feds ain't doin' diddly.
I didn't realize who FAIR was 'til you mentioned it and I looked 'em up. They certainly seem to have a bias in this issue, but then their opinion and data is sought after frequently by Congress and other institutions, so I'm not going to discount their estimate. Especially since even you cite the same number they've come up with and I've heard it from other venues as well.

The 'offsets' you suggest don't hold water; gas and utilities? That is money spent for direct resources, they don't 'offset' a single dime, much less the hundreds of millions your state has to dole out for primary, secondary, or higher education costs of illegals, healthcare, housing, public safety, jobs lost, or unpaid taxes. The billion + estimate is FAR from an exaggeration; and to prove it, here's a measuring stick from that notoriously overrun border state.............Minnesota:

http://www.state.mn.us/mn/externalDocs/Administration/Report_The_Impact_of_Illegal_Immigration_on_Minnesota_120805035315_Illegal%20Immigration%20Brief%2026.pdf

This is from a state study done in 2005, with an estimated 85,000 illegals. Their projected cost to the taxpayers of Minnesota is upwards of $185 million. Minnesota ranks around 30th in the number of illegals, whereas Arizona is in the top 5 and harbors at least half a million illegals. Just taking the difference modestly and multiplying times 5 (plus 65,000) , Arizona is over a billion annually in taxpayer cost. And that's without considering the much greater costs from the education system, the prison population, and the public safety expenditures to fight human, drug, and arms trafficking and the crimes that come with them and Minnesota doesn't incur.

Brewer's comment was ridiculous, but so is pretending that illegals aren't costing Arizona exponentially.

ivalueamerica 4 years, 4 months ago

You can not violate the Contitution, no matter how serious the matter.

calwt262 4 years, 4 months ago

tell that to Abraham Lincoln (suspension of habeas corpus) and FDR (Japanese internment camps)

monkeyspunk 4 years, 4 months ago

Just because someone in power does it, does that make it right?

Good try with that logic, but that just doesn't fly.

You can moralize ANYTHING when you think as simply as a five year old.

calwt262 4 years, 4 months ago

My post had nothing to do with right or wrong, simply that it happens. Good to know monkeys are moralizing issues sua sponte.

ivalueamerica 4 years, 4 months ago

FDR was repudiates by the Supreme Court for the Japanese Interment Camps.

I do not believe that today habeas corpus could be suspended like it was then, though in times of war, people act out of fear more than reason, unfortunately.

equalaccessprivacy 4 years, 4 months ago

Well-said, but violators are constitutionally-challenged and don't appreciate the principles at stake.

Richard Payton 4 years, 4 months ago

According to Chris S. on 710AM radio this subclass of people now stands at 12 percent of the Arizona population.

beatrice 4 years, 4 months ago

And where did Chris S. get this number?

I live in Arizona, and 12 percent is a ridiculous number.

jaywalker 4 years, 4 months ago

The estimate is around half a million illegals out of a state population of 6.5 million. 12% is too high.

Jimo 4 years, 4 months ago

"The GOP couldn't have bought this kind of motivation for voters to turn out in the mid-terms."

Mixed for the GOP. On one hand, Hispanics were the only ethnic group outside of white-bread America that the GOP hadn't yet tick-off.

On the other hand, we avoid an endless stream of new stories about perfectly legal brown people used and abused by (other than for this law) rogue racists cops. No stories about vanfuls of little Pedros on the way to a soccer match held for hours in the desert sun because they didn't have a birth certificate on them (by vanfuls of Zoe's and Zachary's let free to proceed). No story about some Iraq vetern named Gonzalez who finally got fed up with being harassed, talked back to the arrogant police officer and ended up dying from some choke hold, no story about some parish priest jailed for driving pregnant Maria to the health clinic. All 100% poison for the GOP's continued existence - let alone electoral success - as a political party.

blindrabbit 4 years, 4 months ago

Great! What does this do for Herr Kobach. Wonder if Fremont, Nebraska is doing a turnaround about hiring him. Maybe this will get the Feds. to be proactive into addressing this issue. Need to get wishy-washy McCain to move this along.

Kirk Larson 4 years, 4 months ago

When she was appointed, she was highly recommended by John Kyl, the Repub Senator from Arizona.

Jimo 4 years, 4 months ago

"It only seems fair."

No, it only seems irrelevant.

monkeyspunk 4 years, 4 months ago

Once again, elementary logic reigns supreme. Let's excuse our actions based on the actions of someone else, regardless of whether is moral, ethical or abides by our constitution.

Here let me put it for you in terms you might understand. Two wrongs don't make a right.

You go ahead and try to be more like Mexico. If you hate America so much and like Mexico better, why don't you move there? Traitor...

pooter 4 years, 4 months ago

I hope the Feds win their lawsuit against Arizona.

It'll set the legal precedence needed to throw out every state law thats been passed in every state that parrots any federal law.

If a state law is already addressed at the Federal level, it will be unconstitutional for states to enforce them.

So for starters we can say bye bye to state drug laws and state enforcement of drug laws.

Felon in possession of a firearm?

Not a state problem, the Feds already have a law.

And everyone charged with any one of these soon to be unconstitutional state crimes will have to have their records expunged.

Thanks Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder.

Pretty nice way for all the states to clear their books of useless duplicate laws and empty out a lot of prisons.

*

Jimo 4 years, 4 months ago

Methinks you failed to learn the difference between exclusive jurisdiction and concurrent jurisdiction (or believe everyone else didn't).

pooter 4 years, 4 months ago

And Methinks the Feds are the ones who've failed and are in need to learn the very same difference.

The Federal lawsuit's main argument is the legal doctrine of "preemption," which is based on the Constitution's supremacy clause and says that federal law trumps state statutes.

As for immigration and exclusive jurisdiction, just exactly when did the States surrender their power over immigration to the Federal Government? (They didn't)

And where can this surrender be found documented in the US Constitution? (It can't)

*

pooter 4 years, 4 months ago

And here is the problem with the "implied power" argument. None of the States have ever surrendered their authority over internal State immigration matters to the federal government.

Naturalization and Immigration are two separate and unrelated subject matters.

Immigration deals with the movement of people while “uniform rules of naturalization” deals solely with citizenship requirements.

The Constitution’s enumerated powers say nothing about immigration. What power not expressly granted means it was expressly withheld.

So for Congress to claim “pre-eminent authority to regulate immigration matters” two conditions must be true, 1) the power be expressly delegated, or incident to an express power and,

2) the power must be expressly withheld from the States. Because neither condition is true, there is not even a question of concurrent exercise involved.

So in reality it is Arizona who can claim pre-eminent authority over immigration matters within Arizona and not Congress.

*

Jimo 4 years, 4 months ago

Hey this was all started by an unpopular GOP flunkie promoted to Governor when the elected Governor resigned. She was the one who decided to dredge the depth of racism to save her skin.

She rolled the dice. Legally, she lost. Politically, I suspect she won (in the short run).

Will the GOP now stop standing in the way of comprehensive immigration reform? Don't hold your breath.

Alyosha 4 years, 4 months ago

It matters not a whit that a majority of Americans favor this law as written. All that means is that they too don't understand how American federalism works. Ignorance is not a virtue.

The real question is why the governor signed a law any reasonable person could see -- and which many reasonable people predicted would happen -- would fail a court challenge. An argument could be made that the governor and legislators acted negligently in passing a law they knew or should have known would not pass constitutional challenge. That's a waste of public money and resources and needlessly added to the already high level of emotions over the issue.

If you say you're for following the Constitution, you actually have to follow the Constitution.

beatrice 4 years, 4 months ago

Excellent news. It was a flawed law based on a false premise that it would "stop the flow of illegals into the state," as was so often stated. Time to go back to the drawing board and come up with a rational solution to a problem.

jaywalker 4 years, 4 months ago

" based on a false premise that it would "stop the flow of illegals into the state,"

That's a curious assertion to make considering the mass exodus that's been reported of late because of the approaching start date of the law.

beatrice 4 years, 4 months ago

People did say this would help to stop the flow of illegals into the country, which it never would. That is like putting pots out to catch water from a leaking ceiling and say you are doing it to fix the roof. (a bit of a stuggle on the analogy, but worth a shot)

People did leave to go to other states, however, so Arizona made its problem more of a national problem.

All at the cost of millions of dollars of lost revenue due to cancelled conventions and unbooked travel to the state. How many companies would plan to come to Arizona if they have any customer or employee base that is hispanic? So Brewer and the zealot Republican legislature cost the state millions, and the law will never take effect. Brilliant.

beatrice 4 years, 4 months ago

Didn't know you followed Elton John's tweets.

jaywalker 4 years, 4 months ago

Considering an estimated half million cross the border into Arizona every year, and considering so many were leaving Arizona in expectation of this law's enactment, how can you believe this wouldn't have stemmed the tide somewhat? And it's already a 'national problem'. A few million dollars of lost revenue doesn't compare to hospitals going bankrupt and more than a 100 million dollars a year just to house illegals in federal pens in Arizona. The estimates have been thrown out there from 1 to 2 billion dollars annually that illegals cost the taxpayers of Arizona. The money drain is on the flip side of your coin.

beatrice 4 years, 4 months ago

Not sure where you are getting your numbers, as they seem to be much higher than I've seen, but it doesn't really matter. Yes, there is a very negative cost for having an open border as we do at present. Certainly not denying that. I'm also not saying I'm in favor of an open border. Illegal immigrants in our country is a problem, but how it should be handled is where we differ.

Why I say that it isn't doing anything toward securing the border is because people will continue to come through the border even if some are stopped while in Phoenix or Flagstaff or Tucson. Catching some of the water coming through the leaky roof isn't actually fixing the roof. If the roof is the problem, best put attention there, not on the water on the floor. Same with the border. Stopping some people elsewhere in the state isn't stopping people from coming over the border. It is an ounce of prevention versus a pound of cure kind of thing.

jaywalker 4 years, 4 months ago

Well, I certainly think it's more than an ounce of prevention....and I'm pretty sure you do to! Look at it this way: ramping up the policing powers of state law enforcement HAD a significant effect even before the law became active. If all the border states were to do the same............? No, I think this law enforced along the entire border would significantly curb the flow.

And look to our conversation earlier in this string (after the FAIR citation) for some numbers. Granted they come from a Minnesota government study, but that makes them all the more sobering.

beatrice 4 years, 4 months ago

Yes, enforce the law along the entire border ... by the feds. States shouldn't be forced to pay for the job the feds should have been doing the past several decades. While it looks like the law won't come to fruition in AZ, just asking state law enforcement to do the job the feds should be doing is too much of a burden on local municipalities. It was a bad bill, would have made a bad law, and it would have been too expensive for the state. Also, if this had just been about people who are arrested for committing another crime, I don't believe there would have been the uproar that we witnessed.

jaywalker 4 years, 4 months ago

You have to be kidding, bea. First of all, the feds aren't doing squat. All the Arizona law was going to do was put the federal law into action......but no, a federal judge blocks it. Second, the states are paying for it any which way you slice it; if they have to sit and wait for the feds, they take it in the shorts, like Arizona, with a billion plus per year in taxpayer dollars being wasted. Even if the feds were taking care of it........YOU are still paying for it. Who do you think pays their salaries??? And since state law enforcement is already in place they are already equipped to handle the job. Pretending that the feds need to take care of this all by themselves means you're blind to the fact that such implementation would mean a massive increase in federal hirings for manpower to enforce the law they're already ignoring. Which in turn means MORE money out of our pockets. Having the states handle it makes sense all the way around. Lastly, the law was about people being stopped for another crime; not necessarily 'arrested', but they'd have to be detained for a law infraction to begin with. It was never like the head of the Arizona ACLU blatantly mislead your state with that bogus ad, like someone pruning bushes on their own property could be accosted.

All this posturing and still nothing being done. That's our federal government in action. But you think it's their job? They obviously don't want to do it, particularly with this administration and control of the House. All that happened today was more siphoning of our money and disregard for the sovereignty of our borders. I'm proud of what America stands for but I'm sick and tired of people taking advantage.

sherlock 4 years, 4 months ago

so when an American is arrested, dont they have to show identification? Fingerprints that are kept on record? Picture Ids now have to be shown to even see youre physician, etc. So why is it illegal for this to happen in AZ? Just think if you traverse to Mexico what would happen if you lost/didnt have proper papers? Yeah into the pokey, and throw away the key! Sorry dont know them, never heard of them etc. Yep we cater to the illegals, give them a free ride, jobs, housing, free schooling, money, food, health care etc. Yet many Americans dont have health care, jobs or even a place to hang their hats! Is this fair? So why doesnt our "wonderful government" stop the aliens coming enmasse to the good old USA? Yeah why?????? Oh yeah---wait, if we give them amnesty, then they will vote for that gov. person who turned their heads? Right?

Jimo 4 years, 4 months ago

Can anyone tell if this is sarcasm from Mark Williams with the Tea Party? On one hand it makes about as poor sense as William's Lincoln letter. On the other hand, the grammar is worse.

nanimwe 4 years, 4 months ago

Perhaps you can explain what is wrong with this reasoning.

Mike Ford 4 years, 4 months ago

if this law would've been left intact, I would've suggested there be a competency test on the constitution and American History that tea partiers and GOP people had to take to vote so they would be forced to realize that just because Glenn "Dropout" Beck writes something on a chalkboard doesn't make it actual American History or Government policy.

newmedia 4 years, 4 months ago

Anybody really surprised with that liberal judge?

MyName 4 years, 4 months ago

WTH is that supposed to mean? The biggest reason it was blocked was because if the courts later decide it was invalid, it'll cause a big set of legal headaches. Since it's got to go through the legal system anyways, there's no harm in waiting for the thing to go into effect if the courts later on decide the law is constitutional after all.

Jimo 4 years, 4 months ago

A judge is liberal by following our Constitution?

States don't regulate immigration, coin money, run bankruptcy, appoint ambassadors, send troops to attack other countries, set up postal systems, or establish weights and measures, among other things. That's not liberalism. It's federalism.

jayhawklawrence 4 years, 4 months ago

Most Americans are very tired of this immigration problem. I think the liberals underestimate the anger that people are having toward irresponsible government.

I think the decision to sue the state of AZ is a pivotal issue that will end the Democratic majority in Congress.

Barring a miracle, like another couple of idiots winning the Republican primaries, I think Obama is going to hit the lecture circuit earlier than he planned.

Jimo 4 years, 4 months ago

"I think the liberals underestimate the anger that people are having toward irresponsible government."

That's strange. The last time the nuts went berserk on this topic, refusing to pass Bush's immigration reform whose absence they now bemoan, virtually every wetback hating congressman was defeated for re-election.

beatrice 4 years, 4 months ago

AppleJack, why didn't you provide the link where you got this. If you are going to speak the Republican party line, you should given proper credit. http://lettertobarackobama.com/articles/20100427/i-would-move-my-faily-mexico-please-help

monkeyspunk 4 years, 4 months ago

Haha, calling BS on that one. You took credit for it, and when someone calls you on it, you backtrack. Nice, but typical.

Again, if you like Mexico so much, just move you America hater. If they do things so much better, please go. I will show you the way!

Jimo 4 years, 4 months ago

Please take your deep-seated hatred of American values and leave!

independant1 4 years, 4 months ago

It's a travesty the problem of illegals from the south hasn't been addressed.

The real energy and minds of the Normal Majority will step in and handle it and fight it through to a successful conclusion. (Will Rogers)

jayhawklawrence 4 years, 4 months ago

I don't want to trade the radical left for the radical right.

I just want common sense back in government.

I say we ignore the hate groups and their rhetoric if we can.

jayhawklawrence 4 years, 4 months ago

If the people cannot trust their government to do the job for which it exists - to protect them and to promote their common welfare - all else is lost.

BARACK OBAMA, speech, Aug. 28, 2006

Darwin 4 years, 4 months ago

The people who are hiring the illegal immigrants are the ones who should be prosecuted. Gee...Bob's Janitorial in Lawrence comes to mind.

Bottom line...start at the top where the cause of all this exists.

Mike Ford 4 years, 4 months ago

that's really funny snodgrass. too bad the umatilla and yakima tribes mostly stopped the outsiders from creating history by stealing the remains of an indigenous person and having some looney archaeology show on the History Channel to give pointless conspiracy supremacists afalse sense of denying indigenous longetivity on this continent. Meanwhile back to the post at hand, It's ironic that european immigrants who live in a state less than 100 years old are outraged because the indigenous peoples who lived in this area until 1847 want to come back and do hard work that no finger pointing armchair quarterback red-blooded fox watcher would ever do. I mean outdoor plant work is below them, right? There's no arrogance in their attitudes at all. How are American jobs are being taken when you couldn't even get a bottom of the rung american to do the hard work such people do. This whole thing is a bunch of red meat bs thrown by the dumblicans to rally their dumblican base. who needs substance to run a country anyway?

independant1 4 years, 4 months ago

illegals in the USA workforce are a big reason why teenage unemployment is so high. Or rephrased, why there are not as many job opportunities at the low end of the pay scale.

nanimwe 4 years, 4 months ago

How elitist of you to assume that Americans won't do these jobs. Americans WILL do these jobs, they just require a legal wage.

TopJayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

Just another way of trying to take power away from the states and turn it all over to the Feds. The Fed. Gov is trying for a power grab. It's really what Obama wants.

independant1 4 years, 4 months ago

It's a good thing we aren't getting all the government we are paying for. (Will Rogers)

Mike Ford 4 years, 4 months ago

does any of the fake victims on this post remember the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution. The dumblicans loved reminding the democrats of it with all of the dumb things Dumya signed into law but when the tables are turned it's such a travesty... boooo hooooo.

jayhawklawrence 4 years, 4 months ago

I wonder if anyone has done a reliable study on how much the non-management of immigration has cost US taxpayers compared to putting 30 million Americans into a National health care program?

Inefficiency in the management of resources is our problem. At least, I along with most Americans believe that.

I doubt if anyone is voting for people they actually like anymore, just for people that might not screw things up any worse.

pooter 4 years, 4 months ago

Please point out for us the exact Article, Section and/or Amendment in the Constitution where this "power for immigration control being reserved for the Federal govt" can be found.

*

Jimo 4 years, 4 months ago

Errrrr.....Article 6, Clause 2?

And of course indirectly Article 3, section 2, Amendment XIV, section 1 in multiple parts.

Let alone 225 years of history. But I've noticed from your posts that you seem to have a brilliance of constitutional interpretation that every other American from G. Washington onward was too stupid to have grasped ... until you showed us the way!

Dude, you couldn't pass a citizenship test.

pooter 4 years, 4 months ago

You better go read the Constitution again because nowhere in what you've cited is there any delegation to any such power over immigration given to the Federal govt.

As for history lets go back to 1798 and read where Thomas Jefferson forcibly tells us what the States retained under the US Constitution in regards to immigration:

IV. Resolved, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the state wherein they are; that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual states, distinct from their power over citizens; and it being true, as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that 'the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved, to the states, respectively, or to the people,' the act of the Congress of the United States, passed the 22d day of June, 1798, entitled 'An Act concerning Aliens,' which assumes power over alien friends not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void and of no force.

Even back then the Feds were trying, just as they are today, to overstep their bounds which are clearly defined in the Constitution.

*

pooter 4 years, 4 months ago

So are we to assume, from what Thomas Jefferson said, that he was too stupid to grasp what the constitution plainly says and couldn't pass a citizenship test either?

*

Jimo 4 years, 4 months ago

I'm not going to argue with someone with the cut and paste skills just above a chimp over the claim that the U.S. government lacks the constitutional power to assert jurisdiction over foreign persons in this country (nor over the existence of gravity or Bigfoot).

pooter 4 years, 4 months ago

I understand your frustration with arguing against facts but you don't have to devolve your assertions into petty name calling or derogatory insinuations.

*

Jimo 4 years, 4 months ago

If you weren't so dense, you would realize that you had turned Jefferson's point upside down. Jefferson was pontificating on the nature of foreigners in counter-proposition to the Alien Act, sponsored by President John Adams and enacted into law by Congress. The Alien Act gave the gov't the power to deport(!) foreigners who criticized the gov't.

What you cut and pasted comes from the "Kentucky Resolutions" which was endorsed by the Kentucky legislature and then died of boredom when no other state nor political group was interested in making such absurd proposals. Jefferson was a hypocrite who claimed a populist, anti-federal interpretation of the constitution ... except when that view conflicted with something he wanted to do like embargo all shipping to Europe or buy "Louisiana."

The quote is the equivalent of a politician saying "my opponent steals from babies and consorts with the devil. I'm Thomas Jefferson and I endorse this message." It does NOT represent Jefferson's actual thinking and has the further demerit of being irrelevant seeing that the government of the United States has claimed and enforced the contrary claim starting with G. Washington and thereafter. In other words ... you lose.

So, all you've done is cited the personal opinion of T. Jefferson in defense of the rights of immigrants, legal and illegal - a man who in all likelihood would be turning his pen to defend the honor of aliens if he were alive today! Bravo, sir, bravo!!

pooter 4 years, 4 months ago

Jefferson, along with James Madison, wrote the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions in favor of State rights opposing the Alien and Sedition Acts passed in 1798 as unconstitutional on the grounds that they violated the 10th ammendment.

Sadly the Alien and Sedition Acts never made it before SCOTUS for judicial review since the Acts expired in 1801 when President Adams left office .

However, SCOTUS has mentioned the Acts in several of it's decisions, and based upon those opinions would have ruled them unconstitutional.

As for the Resolutions representing Jefferson's actual thinking, they contain his own words, words I am sure he did not write in jest.

*

Jimo 4 years, 4 months ago

SCOTUS has rarely mention the Resolutions, no great surprise since they misconstrue the Constitution, their underlying claims rejected by among others Madison's Chief Justice (Madison having rethought Jefferson misguidance).

T. Roosevelt said: "The more I study Jefferson, the more profoundly I distrust him and his influence, taken as a whole...In my estimation Jefferson's influence upon the United States as a whole was very distinctly evil."

You're free to claim the Resolutions represent Jefferson's thinking (not that Jefferson's thinking on constitutional matters carries much weight seeing he played no role in the Constitution's drafting or adoption). But seeing that Jefferson's authorship was a secret and was only reluctantly admited to by him many years later, it seems quite questionable whether it expresses his "thinking."

What is clear and unmistakable was Jefferson's thinking on Immigration, which he held to be an inherent and unrestrictable natural right for every human being regardless of what any nation might think. Jefferson stated this claim to the right of "expatriation" many times and public ally. "I hold the right of expatriation to be inherent in every man by the laws of nature, and incapable of being rightfully taken from him even by the united will of every other person in the nation."

How ironic that you would remind us all of the un-American values inherent in many persons vile, uncharitable and racist attitudes toward modern immigrants. Once again, you marshal evidence that only undercuts your position.

independant1 4 years, 4 months ago

we need a moratorium on illegal immigraton from mexico and s. america, so that the other economically challenged countries can send their fair share to usa. after they catchup then we can open the south border again but meter the exodus from each country. just make sure we have guest registers at all entry points.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.