danivon wrote:Doctor Fate wrote:So, it's fine to break Federal law as long as there is an economic reason to do so? I believe
this law says it is not legal for a local government to fail to cooperate with ICE regarding immigration enforcement.
Has it been tested against the Constitution? I'm thinking 9th and 10th Amendments.
Sure. Whatever. That's not really an argument.
When AZ wanted to check to see if someone was illegal, DOJ sued. Now, the Federal government is depositing illegals all over the country--without so much as a courtesy phone call.
And, they're doing a bang-up job. Adult illegal immigrants posing as unaccompanied alien children appear to be attempting to enroll at public high schools, city officials in Lynn, Mass., tell National Review Online.
“Some of them have had gray hair and they’re telling you that they’re 17 years old and they have no documentation,” Jamie Cerulli, the Lynn mayor’s chief of staff, tells NRO. “If my children went to the public schools, I’d be very uncomfortable with all of these unaccompanied minors [that] are placed in the ninth grade.”
Admission of all foreign students — illegal immigrants, refugees, and foreign nationals — has increased by more than 500 students since the 2010–2011 school year, Catherine Latham, the city’s superintendent of schools, tells NRO. Last school year, nearly 250 students arrived from Guatemala, including 126 enrolled in the ninth grade.
The majority of unaccompanied Guatemalan children arriving in the city hail from the city of San Marcos, Latham says, and are drawn by Lynn’s large Guatemalan population.
NRO has obtained Department of Health and Human Services documents and images of two unaccompanied aliens living in Lynn that appear to challenge the notion that the age information listened for these “children” on their documents is accurate.
They have transported "kids" to Nebraska, Colorado, and who knows where else, without checking them for diseases, etc.
It is lawless. Then again, it's the Obama Administration, so "laws? We don't need no stinkin' laws!"
It's kind of a unique situation because the argument for violating the law sounds so much like economic argument in favor of slavery.
Ironically, the main time we had the economic arguments for slavery were when it was legal.
While the American Right are having kittens about 50,000 kids, there are several times that number in Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon who have fled war. I don't think the USA has the biggest problem with refugees.
It's not 50,000 "kids." It's what will happen to them (most will not appear for their hearing) and it's what will attend them--poverty, benefits, more "kids" following them in--and all of their family somewhere down the road.
Furthermore, I heard the "journalist," Cokie Roberts, on "This Week" yesterday. She said we have an obligation to take every child whose country is not as safe as NYC.
That could be 10's or 100's of millions--if that's the standard we land on.
Oh, and the President wants to spend $3.7B to "solve" this. Really? What will the money do? Faster processing? Great, but what about stopping all the illegals still coming? What about changing the law that he alleges is the problem?
Oh, and I don't notice Great Britain clamoring to take tens of thousands of impoverished, unskilled, aliens into their country. If you want them, we can fly them to you.