Supreme Court Not Impressed With Obama Team On Immigration

Supreme Court casts doubt on Obama’s immigration law claim

Supreme Court justices took a dim view of the Obama administration’s claim that it can stop Arizona from enforcing immigration laws, telling government lawyers during oral argument Wednesday that the state appears to want to push federal officials, not conflict with them.

The court was hearing arguments on Arizona’s immigration crackdown law, which requires police to check the immigration status of those they suspect are in the country illegally, and would also write new state penalties for illegal immigrants who try to apply for jobs.

Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. said the federal government has limited resources and should have the right to determine the extent of calls it gets about possible illegal immigrants.

“These decisions have to be made at the national level,” he said.

But even Democratic-appointed justices were uncertain of that.

“I’m terribly confused by your answer,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who went on to say that the federal government can always decline to pick up illegal immigrants when Arizona officials call.

Click the title to read more......

But the 53 Democratic Senators want to overrule the Supreme Court with new legislation stripping the states of their apparent rights.  Can you imagine that 53 residents of the United States have the audacity to tell over 308 million what to accept?

Congressman Marino's Statement On Arizona Shooting

REP. MARINO’S STATEMENT ON TUCSON SHOOTING

 I am deeply saddened by today’s tragic and senseless attack on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, her staff and constituents.

It is especially discouraging since this past week we witnessed the peaceful transition of power that makes America the greatest nation on Earth.

My wife Edie and I, and members of my staff are praying for the full recovery of Rep. Giffords and all other victims of today’s shooting.

We extend our condolences to the families of Judge John Roll and the others who sadly did not survive the attack, especially to the family of the young child who was killed.

Chris Carney's Ridiculous Assertions Against Sarah Palin

In today's Times-Tribune Andrew Staub pens an article covering FORMER U.S. Congressman Chris Carney's comments over the shooting in Arizona of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, members of her staff and the killing of at least six people including a U.S. District Judge and a 9 year old girl.

Though Mr. Carney, a former U.S. representative from Dimock Twp., and other Northeast Pennsylvania political figures stopped short of assigning blame to Mrs. Palin, a rumored Republican candidate for president in 2012, Mr. Carney said "a lot of folks were concerned that something would happen sooner rather than later" after she released the map.

"You would think it shouldn't have to take something like this to be a lesson, but I think it's an indication of how far we've sunk," Mr. Carney said Saturday, lamenting that the "discourse in this country has deteriorated tremendously."

Though police have not yet released a motive that led 22-year-old Jared Loughner, the suspect in the shooting, to the Tucson grocery store, many posters at news and social networking websites immediately connected the shooting and Mrs. Palin's map. Mr. Carney called it "a reach to think that this was sort of a random event."

"I'm not sure if 'blame' is the right word for Ms. Palin, but I think it wasn't helpful, obviously," Mr. Carney said of her map. "It would be very useful if she came out and, if not apologize, say that she was wrong in putting that sort of logo on peoples' districts."

Here is the map that Carney refers to in his ridiculous comments.

Forget whether you believe they are crosshairs for sighting or calibration.

Look at this map from the Democratic Leadership Council contained in this article by Will Marshall in December, 2004.

Those bullseye markings resemble targets more than crosshairs outside a circle.

What a self-serving public relations effort by Carney. He should be ashamed of himself for using this shooting to talk about his political career. The Times-Tribune should stick to writing the news rather than appearing to influence election outcomes.

Buy American??

I was thinking about the lawsuit filed by the Obama team against the state of Arizona over illegal immigration. If the federal government was doing its job Arizona would have no need to enact the controversial legislation.

But its not doing its job, plain and clear.

Frustration by states and local municipalities in dealing with the effects of the U.S. government failure to contain illegal migration into our soverign soil has sparked many attempts to take matters into their own hands. Another blur by the courts is the interpretation that states or local municipalities are pre-empted by federal law where illegal immigration is concerned. If they are pre-empted then doesn't that force states and municipalities to suffer the consequences of inaction?

So here is how I see it. I don't do my job but any attempt to have the job done will be met with lawsuits. What are states and municipalities to do in that case? What it proves to me is that the Obama administration wants illegal immigration and will stall any real attempt to fix it. UPDATE: Here is a link to today's ABCNews story that validates my assumption. Obama 'Scheming' on Immigrant Amnesty? Memo Draws Republican Fire

When this country was founded it was the states who were in charge of immigration. Along the way the Supreme Court and the federal government took the position that immigration was a national interest issue therefore the purveyance of the federal government.

Devin Dwyer penned this story on ABCNews today that further demonstrates the federal government's inability to be the central processor on immigration. The story is about a legal resident where his family's attempt to become U.S. citizens can take up to seven years. That is totally unacceptable. The U.S. government can't control the borders or process applications in a timely manner. The rest of us suffer.

So why is the title of this post "Buy American"? A little known provision in the stimulus law, ARRA, contains a Buy American provision for water projects funded and aimed at the Clean or Drinking Water State Revolving Funds.

The question I have is why does the federal government have a Buy American mandate but is willing to challenge an American state over illegal immigration? Doesn't make sense.

Inconsistencies Between Munley And Arizona Ruling

Today, an federal judge in Arizona granted a temporary injunction to the most controversial portions of the state of Arizona's new law aimed at illegal aliens.

In reading her decision a glaring inconsistency stood out when one compares it to Judge Munley's ruling in the Hazleton case.

a. Mandatory Immigration Status Determination Upon Arrest

The Court first addresses the second sentence of Section 2(B): “Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released.”

Arizona advances that the proper interpretation of this sentence is “that only where a reasonable suspicion exists that a person arrested is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States must the person’s immigration status be determined before the person is released.” (Defs.’ Resp. to Pl.’s Mot. (“Defs.’ Resp.”) at 10.)5 Arizona goes on to state, “[T]he Arizona Legislature could not have intended to compel Arizona’s law enforcement officers to determine and verify the immigration status of every single person arrested – even for United States citizens and when there is absolutely no reason to believe the person is unlawfully present in the country.” (Id.)

The Court cannot interpret this provision as Arizona suggests. Before the passage of H.B. 2162, the first sentence of Section 2(B) of the original S.B. 1070 began, “For any lawful contact” rather than “For any lawful stop, detention or arrest.” (Compare original S.B. 1070 § 2(B) with H.B. 2162 § 3(B).) The second sentence was identical in the original version and as modified by H.B. 2162. It is not a logical interpretation of the Arizona Legislature’s intent to state that it originally intended the first two sentences of Section 2(B) to be read as dependent on one another. As initially written, the first sentence of Section 2(B) did not
contain the word “arrest,” such that the second sentence could be read as modifying or explicating the first sentence. In S.B. 1070 as originally enacted, the first two sentences of Section 2(B) are clearly independent of one another. Therefore, it does not follow logically that by changing “any lawful contact” to “any lawful stop, detention or arrest” in the first sentence, the Arizona Legislature intended to alter the meaning of the second sentence in any way. If that had been the Legislature’s intent, it could easily have modified the second sentence accordingly.

Here is what Judge Munley wrote in his Opinion concerning the first version of the Hazleton Ordinance.

C. Amendments to the Ordinance

On March 15, 2007, during this court’s trial of this matter, defendant
introduced Ordinance 2007-6, which has since become law in the city.
See Ordinance 2007-6 (Defense Ex. 251). This Ordinance Amended
Sections 4B(2) and 5(B)(2) of IIRA. Id. As originally written, “a complaint which alleges a violation solely or primarily on the basis of national origin, ethnicity or race” would not be enforced. Ordinance 2006-18 at § 4B(2).

The 2007 amendment removed the words “solely or primarily” from these provisions, meaning that “a complaint which alleges a violation on the basis of national origin, ethnicity or race shall be deemed invalid and shall not be enforced.” Ordinance 2007-6. The amendment also altered Section 4.A of the Ordinance by adding the word “knowingly” to a provision prohibiting the recruitment and hiring of illegal aliens. Id.; see Ordinance 2006-18 at § 4.A (establishing that: “It is unlawful for any business entity to knowingly recruit, hire for employment, or continue to employ, or to permit, dispatch, or instruct any person who is an unlawful worker to perform work in whole or part within the City.”). At the end of the hearing on the plaintiffs’ complaint, we asked the parties for briefs on the effect of this amendment on the instant litigation.

The parties agree that the court has jurisdiction to issue a decision
on the current version of the ordinance. Plaintiffs argue, however, that we should also rule on the version of the ordinance that existed until the March amendment. Defendant amended the ordinance, plaintiffs argue, to avoid having this court rule on the constitutionality of the ordinance as it then existed. That amendment did not come, plaintiffs insist, because
Defendant recognized that the previous version of the ordinance violated
the constitution, but simply to improve defendant’s litigation position.
Accordingly, the court could reasonably conclude that defendant will not
cease the illegal practice embodied in the earlier version of the ordinance.

The dispute between the parties here is over whether we should also
consider the version of the ordinance that was in effect through most of the litigation in this matter. We find that we do not have jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality of a version of an ordinance that no longer exists, particularly when we have–as both sides admit–jurisdiction to examine the current version of that ordinance.

In one case Judge Susan R. Bolton considers information in a prior version to rule on the present version and in Munley's case he refuses to rule on an earlier version thereby basing his decision on the latest version. Go figure.

What amazes me in both rulings is that each judge surmised legislative intent without any testimony from either legislature representatives. I guess Johnny Carson's Amazing Kreskin still lives on.

In the Arizona case Bolton wrote this statement in her Opinion. "The Court cannot interpret this provision as Arizona suggests." Your honor, no disrespect but the State is telling you what its intent was and you chose to disagree. Is that within your judicial powers?

In Hazleton's case Judge Munley takes until page 90 of his 206 page decision to finally get to the "Federal Constitutional Issues".  He writes from page 13 until 90 on preliminary issues like the rights of John and Jane Doe. 

Didn't Jill Moran take a hit back in 2009 for putting the "John Doe" name to Robert Powell's IRS lien filing? Here's what Jennifer Learn-Andes wrote in her article on January 20, 2009.

Experts said her action was illegal. Federal officials were looking into the matter, but it's unclear if any official action was taken against Moran. Moran later put the lien under Powell's name in the office database.

Heck you can't even hunt a John Doe during buck season.

And those who oppose Lou Barletta feel he is trampling on the rights of illegal aliens? Go figure.

Kanjorski Isn't The Only One With The Gaffes

Obama orders NASA to Improve Relations With the Muslims? Why?? Former NASA Director Says Muslim Outreach Push 'Deeply Flawed' At least someone sees it right.

I thought job creation is the Number One priority in this country. That was yesterday.

Obama can't tackle immigration so he decided to tackle Arizona instead at the fifty yard line. Federal government files lawsuit against Arizona This action follows 34 illegal immigrants who were caught landing on the shores of California including 18 at Camp Pendelton.

He can't handle the BP Oil spill so he decides to take on the next two most important items on the country's agenda. What flawed thinking. But don't worry. Just when you think he's lost direction along comes Specter and Casey to save the day.

Our wounded veterans will be facing a tax on prosthetic limbs courtesy of Senators Robert Casey and Arlen Specter.

“On March 24, Senate Democrats had the opportunity to exempt our veterans from Obamacare’s new tax on medical devices such as prosthetic limbs. But 54 Democrats voted against the measure. They chose to side with the tax-and-spend crowd in Washington over our wounded warriors,”said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. “This is one of the many reasons Harry Reid and the Democrats did not want Americans to read the 2,500 page health care bill before it was passed.”

In addition to those who served in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Department of Veterans Affairs reports the following number of veterans from America’s wars:

World War II: 2,079,000

Korean War: 2,507,000

Vietnam War: 7,569,000

Desert Shield/Storm: 2,254,000

Casey and Specter(Democrats) voted against Senator Orin Hatch's(Republican) attempt to remove the tax from the bill. The pair announced in December that they would support defense funding including the following appropriation.

• $1.6 million for KCF Technologies in Centre County develop a self-powered prosthetic limb to aid combat-injured veterans. (Specter, Casey, Thompson)

Did I read that right???

Lou Barletta strongly supports Arizona law against illegal immigration

Mayor: Where do Kanjorski, O'Brien, Kelly stand on the new law?
May 3rd

Hazleton, PA – Today, Hazleton Mayor and 11th Congressional District Candidate Lou Barletta strongly endorsed the Arizona law that cracks down against illegal immigration.

Arizona’s SB 1070 gives local and state law enforcement officials more authority to query the federal government about a person's immigration status.

“Four years ago, the failure of the federal government to address the problems created by millions of illegal aliens led me to introduce and champion the Illegal Immigration Relief Act in Hazleton. It's amazing to me that now, four years later, the federal government has still failed to secure our borders and deal with the drain of illegal immigration on municipalities and states,” Mayor Barletta said. “I commend Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona for signing into law what her courageous legislators passed. I understand the pressure they will now be under because I faced that very same pressure in Hazleton by the very same groups. I was called some of the very same names they’re being called right now.
“But, after reviewing the law and speaking with experts who helped draft the legislation, I am confident that the Arizona law includes sufficient safeguards against racial profiling and protects the rights of legal American citizens,” Mayor Barletta continued. “Just like the people of Hazleton several years ago, the people of Arizona were confronted with a dangerous problem and they looked to their elected officials for leadership. I’m proud to say I led the fight here in Hazleton, and I congratulate Gov. Brewer and Arizona lawmakers for standing tall in the face of misguided criticism.

“I'm disappointed but not surprised that the federal government is not taking any steps to stem the flow of illegal aliens into the United States,” Mayor Barletta added. “Our borders remain wide open to those wishing to sneak into this country. That poses an incredible threat to our national security. And, in these difficult economic times, the underground workforce of illegal aliens is taking jobs away from newly arrived legal immigrants, high school graduates, and other Pennsylvanians who desperately need a job.

Mayor Barletta started the national debate about illegal immigration in June 2006, when he proposed and spearheaded the Illegal Immigration Relief Act, an ordinance passed by the Hazleton City Council that requires all employers in the city to check the immigration status of all of its employees and for all landlords to keep on file a city-issued permit for all tenants. The ordinances also made English the language of official city business in Hazleton.

On the eve of the introduction of Pennsylvania’s own law, Mayor Barletta also asked where his opponents in the 11th Congressional District race – Rep. Paul Kanjorski, Corey O'Brien, and Brian Kelly – stand on the Arizona law.

“For more than a week, this legislation has been in the forefront of American debate, yet Mr. Kanjorski, Mr. O'Brien, and Mr. Kelly remain woefully silent on this critical national issue,” Mayor Barletta said. It's time they take a public position on this bill.

“I'd especially like to hear from Mr. Kanjorski, who absolutely needs to explain his inaction in securing our borders and stopping the flow of illegal aliens into the United States, Pennsylvania, and the 11th District. “He cannot continue to hide behind spokesmen. Let's hear from him directly.”

Pa Legislators Introduce Immigration Legislation Similar To Arizona

State Reps. Daryl Metcalfe and Harry Readshaw chose today to announce their promotion of HB 2479 that would allow Pennsylvania to "protect its borders and citizens" by giving local and state police more power to arrest, detain and eventually deport foreigners who have entered the state illegally and don't have proper registration papers.

Tom Barnes of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette wrote that their bill also would create a new third-degree misdemeanor "for illegal aliens who violate federal law by either willfully failing to register as an alien or failing to possess proper proof of such registration when stopped for another primary offense, such as a traffic violation."

The critics are already lining up. It is evident from the article that misinformation abounds about the Arizona law.

About That Arizona Immigration Law

SB1070 Arizona

To end the inaccuracies fostered on the airwaves especially WILK here is a summary from the Arizona Legislature pertaining to its SB1070 recently passed and commonly referred to, incorrectly, as their Immigration Law. Read it and decide for yourself what the real and imaginary provisions are. Here are two parts that are
often maligned, hence an attempt to disseminate the truth.

Requires officials and agencies to reasonably attempt to determine the immigration status of a person involved in a lawful contact where reasonable suspicion exists regarding the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.


Stipulates that a law enforcement official or agency cannot solely consider race, color or national origin when implementing these provisions, except as permitted by the U.S. or Arizona Constitution.

Claims of racial profiling are completely bogus. Every officer knows it would invite a civil rights lawsuit.

Here is another section that demonstrates this law is aimed at criminals not dad, mom, and children.

Makes a first offense a class 1 misdemeanor.


· Increases the penalty to a class 3 felony if the person commits the offense while in possession of:


Ø A dangerous drug (A.R.S. § 13-3401).


Ø Precursor chemicals used to manufacture methamphetamine (A.R.S. § 13-3404.01).


Ø A deadly weapon (A.R.S. § 13-3101).


Ø A dangerous instrument (A.R.S. § 13-105).


Ø Property used for committing an act of terrorism (A.R.S. § 13-2308.01).


· Makes violations a class 4 felony if either:


Ø It is a second or subsequent violation.


Ø Within 60 days, the person has been removed from the U.S. either under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a or 8 U.S.C. § 1229c.

Keep in mind that it is federal law that foreigners must carry their papers with them at all times. It is no different that when we visit a foreign country. In the past your driver's license and birth certificate gained entry into Mexico. Today you must have a passport. But America is picking on the Mexicans???

.

Judge Munley- Are You Paying Attention To These Cases

The Washington Times is reporting that a rancher who faced the possiblity of paying $32 million to illegal aliens crossing his property has, instead walked away instead with a verdict that rejected any notion he violated the trespassers' civil rights and affirmed that U.S. citizens can still detain.

What makes this case interesting is this part of the ruling. U.S. District Judge John M. Roll, for starters, dismissed the claims of 10 of the illegals because they did not testify at trial. He then tossed related conspiracy complaints against Mr. Barnett's wife, Barbara, and his brother Donald, saying illegal immigrants had no constitutionally protected right to travel in the United States.

Judge Roll said the Barnetts, who live in close proximity to the border, could reasonably assume that large groups of people they encountered hiding or trespassing on their property were doing so with the aid of smugglers.

He said entering the United States illegally was a federal felony, for which a citizen's arrest was authorized under Arizona law.

Ultimately, the jury of four men and four women decided that Mr. Barnett did not violate the civil rights of the remaining six plaintiffs and was not guilty of false imprisonment, battery and conspiracy as charged in the suit.

In the case against Hazleton Judge Munley ruled that the John and Jane Does did not have to show up to testify and that the illegal aliens were allowed to file deposition testimony rather than take the stand.

Read how Munley ruled differently when John and Jane Doe were used in a Pleasant Valley School District lawsuit.

In February, 2008 a federal judge sided with Valley Park, Missouri on its right to deny business licenses to those who employ illegal immigrants. An attorney for the city said the decision will have implications for other cities and towns around the nation faced with the same issue. It is worth noting that Kris Kobach, an attorney and law professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City who has appeared on The O'Reilly Factor and other Fox News programs helped with this case. Kris Kobach represented Hazleton during its trial before Munley.

In September, 2008 the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an Arizona sanctions law that was authored based on the Hazleton ordinance.

A federal appeals court has upheld Arizona's employer sanctions law, which penalizes businesses that knowingly hire illegal immigrants and requires them to verify the employment status of their workers.

In October, 2008 the California Appellate Court ruled against San Francisco's Sanctuary Policy stating that the city must follow state law requiring police to report suspected aliens arrested on drug charges to the Federal authorities.