May I see your papers, citizen?

Of course by failing to act, the feds are allowing the burden of the system to fall disproportionally on the people of the border states, but they're just the "victims of the week", right?

Quote:

You are missing the point that, through mandamus, the government can often be required to enforce a law.

Factually it can't. The Federal government has sovereign immunity, meaning this whole tangent is irrelevant in any legal sense.

President Obama is taking aim at the angry, anti-government rhetoric.


(GETTY IMAGES)
In a commencement speech, the president suggested this heated language is out-of-line and could be dangerous:

"At its worst, it can send signals to the most extreme elements of our society that perhaps violence is a justifiable response."

Just like it was for the colonists once upon a time when they got a bellyful of the English crown.

Peggy Noonan writes in the Wall Street Journal that the American people feel increasingly alienated from their government in Washington, which is ignoring public unrest and refusing to address big problems

"At its worst, it can send signals to the most extreme elements of our society that perhaps violence is a justifiable response

"First the government came for people who looked like Mexicans and I said nothing because I don't look Mexican."

Alright, hypothetically, suppose that I make a false report to the police that a group of hispanic looking people are "up to no good" and the police don't come. Please quote for me the section of the law which suggests that I could then sue them successfully.

As for your "solution," what I really intended to ask you was what "valid" law the majority of citizens who want to retain the immigration laws and enforce them could do to accomplish it. Please provide an alternative for enforcing the law, which you wouldn't consider a travesty of justice.

Martin Niemoeller, a German Evangelical Lutheran pastor, was imprisoned for eight years by the Nazi regime. He spoke of the days in the 1930's when Hitler was coming to power:

"First they came for the Communists, but we were not communists, so we said nothing. Then they came for the trade unionists, but we were not trade unionists, so we said nothing. They then came for the Jews, but we were not Jews, so we said nothing. They then came for the mentally deficient, but we were not mentally deficient, so we said nothing. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to say anything."

You are grasping at straws. You are reduced to this because you take the idiotic position that America does not have the right to look out for its own interests above those of citizens of other countries.

If it were known fact that a great many criminals looked like me I would expect to be questioned.

Thomas wrote:

A writ of mandamus doesn't come from individual citizens. It comes from a superior court and goes to an inferior court or some other government agency. All that individuals can do is to petition for a writ of mandamus, which the court can then grant or deny. That's what the page behind your link is about.

You are missing the point that, through mandamus, the government can often be required to enforce a law.

I'm beginning to speculate that this may be the true point of Arizona's law -- that they're essentially playing "chicken" with the federal government.

You are grasping at straws. You are reduced to this because
you take the idiotic position that America does not have the right
to look out for its own interests above those of citizens of other countries.

Because you are obviously the judge of who wins or loses an argument with you,
I will now humbly implode.

On a more serious note: Although I don't agree with you, and don't expect that to change anytime soon, our discussion has helped me clarify my thinking. To invoke the Supremacy Clause in federal court, the Obama administration would have to come out and say they're deliberately lax about enforcing US immigration law. Although it would strengthen their legal argument, it would be a public relations disaster. I'm beginning to speculate that this may be the true point of Arizona's law -- that they're essentially playing "chicken" with the federal government.

]That 's an interesting thawt. In theory,
is failure to execute the immigration law an impeachable offense ?

Article 2 Section 3 of the Constitution requires of the President
that: "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed".