e-Claire

A Post Millennial Consideration of Our Interconnection
by a simple tootsie from The Countryâ„¢...




If comments are closed, please email me: Claire AT e-biscuit DOT com




MAIN PAGE HERE





Dept. of Secret Messages

Quote meon an estimate et non interruptus stadium. Sic tempus fugit esperanto hiccup estrogen. Glorious baklava cheesecake ex librus hup hey yo ho ho ad infinitum. Non sequitur as usual, condominium facile et geranium incognito. Hoo-Ah! Betcha didn't know that!

Stuff by the Month

Most Recent Stuff

Syndicate

This page has been viewed 3057773 times

Referrers

Powered by ExpressionEngine

Differing Realities

for me but not for me

“There is a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law,” Tracy Schmaler, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., told The Washington Times

A state, taking it’s law practically verbatim from federal law using its resources in support of a federal law = Bad Thing.

A locality actively refusing to comply with a federal law = Good Thing.

Is that some twisted federal argument for States’ Rights?  Or just hallucinatory consentual-reality slippage?

"For the Justice Department to suggest that they won’t take action against those who passively violate the law  who fail to comply with the law  is absurd,” said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee and chief author of the 1996 immigration law [Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996]. “Will they ignore individuals who fail to pay taxes? Will they ignore banking laws that require disclosure of transactions over $10,000? Of course not."
...Jim DeMint of South Carolina and David Vitter of Louisiana -- announced that they will introduce an amendment to a bill that would halt the Justice Department lawsuit by denying it federal funding.
Posted by Claire on 07/15 at 07:20 AM
  1. Gah! AZ did not pass an immigration law, ie say who could enter the State, it passed a law that it would try to report probable breakers of Federal law. In contrast, the “sanctuary” cities have passed laws that they will NOT report KNOWN breaking of Federal law.

    The Feds actually have a potential reason for asking AZ to tone it down: there are simply not resources to handle illegal bordercrossers. A couple of months back it was reported that in NY (!) such persons were being released by State/local jails because the Federal agency to which they had been reported did not pick them up in time - as there is no place for the Feds to put them. But that would be admitting the Federal government has a problem - Bush might have said so and called for more resources, but this administration cannot bring itself to ever admit a problem is not part of a conspiracy against it even if the problem is not of its own making.

    Posted by  on  07/15/10  at  10:58 AM

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

<< Back to main

Ponderables




moon phases
 




Fighting Fusileers -- Donate ! !

image

Site Meter