Washingtonpost.com:

On Friday, in Arpaio v. Obamathe U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph Arpaio’s attempt to challenge the Obama administration’s immigration initiatives in federal court.  According to the court, Sheriff Arpaio lacks standing to challenge the measures. Judge Cornelia Pillard wrote the opinion for the court, joined by Judge Sri Srinivasan.  Judge Janice Rogers Brown wrote a separate opinion concurring in the judgment.

The introduction to Judge Pillard’s opinion provides a nice summary of the court’s analysis.  It also seems to accept the Obama administration’s characterization of its immigration reforms as an exercise of enforcement discretion, suggesting that this panel would have rejected Sheriff Arpaio’s claims on the merits.

 

The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security facing what he perceives to be enormous practical obstacles to removing from the United States the eleven million people unlawfully present here, has sought to set enforcement priorities. He accordingly directed relevant agencies temporarily to defer low-priority removals of non-dangerous individuals so that the agencies can focus their resources on removing dangerous criminals and strengthening security at the border. People whose removal has been deferred are generally eligible to apply for authorization to work, and to reside in the United States for up to three years.

The opinion is long and interested readers should read the entire editorial in the Washington Post.  However, it basically says that Sheriff Joe doesn’t have standing.  Period.

I support President Obama’s decision to defer removal of people who are not committing serious crimes.  In the first place, removing 11 million people would be prohibitive in cost and pretty much close to impossible.  Let’s deal with reality.

There are people who are illegally in the United States committing crimes.  I want those people removed and actually wish we could remove some of our own citizens.  Why waste our money rounding up people who aren’t causing a problem?

Germany is having a huge problem at the moment because of xenophobia.  Attacks on refugees have been relentless.  Let’s not be like Germany.  I don’t like institutionalized bias and prejudice.  Right now, illegal immigrants are fair game in the minds of some here in this country. It is perfectly alright to insult them and speak of the them (and to them) with the greatest derision.  In fact, one presidential candidate and his followers seem to think this is acceptable behavior.  Trump has released the specifics of his immigration plan as part of his solution in his bid for the White House.

We have seen where having scapegoats got Germany.  Let’s hope that they harness that 21st aggression against “others” and return to their newfound tolerance.  Let’s hope America doesn’t continue to think it is acceptable to single out groups of people to hate.  Let’s hope America doesn’t elect a leader who has great appeal to the masses.  Leaders who have been elected just so a country can feel good about itself hasn’t worked out too well in the past.  Remember how that worked out for Germany.

11 thoughts on “Sheriff Joe, rejected again…Trump on the rise

  1. Cargosquid

    “has sought to set enforcement priorities. He accordingly directed relevant agencies temporarily to defer low-priority removals of non-dangerous individuals so that the agencies can focus their resources on removing dangerous criminals and strengthening security at the border.”

    That must be why ICE releases thousands of illegal alien felons every year.

    “Leaders who have been elected just so a country can feel good about itself hasn’t worked out too well in the past. ”
    You have described the Obama presidency perfectly.

    Why must we make it more comfortable for illegal aliens even if we don’t “round them up?”
    Why couldn’t Arizona enforce federal law because the Feds hold that power to be their own, but sanctuary cities are allowed to exercise their own foreign relations by ignoring the law?

  2. Jackson Bills

    “There are people who are illegally in the United States committing crimes. I want those people removed”

    Yet I hear no outrage at all when this administration releases tens of thousands of illegal immigrants with criminal convictions. Some of which have been convicted of sexual assault, kidnapping, drugs and even homicide.

    1. I actually haven’t seen evidence that is happening. My outrage tends to stick close to home. Is there evidence that criminals are being released in our area? Why aren’t they standing trial and going to jail.

      I tend to say outrage for real, documented incidents.

  3. Lyssa

    There is quite a high cost for incarceration, subsequent programs and ripple effects on families and need. Reduced public funds may result in fewer quality of life programs in order to pay for more “negative” services.

  4. @Cargosquid

    I haven’t seen evidence that dangerous felons have been released into the population.

    It makes for good talk but I sure haven’t seen it around here.

    Then again, our county targeted illegal immigrants. I do know that ICE resources are scarce and they don’t want to deal with penny ante stuff.

    As for sanctuary cities, I am not sure what that really means. I suppose it varies from city to city. This is where common sense comes into play. You have a rapist or a murderer, then you call ICE to come get them. You have someone who bounces a check or gets a speeding ticket….no ICE. That’s a waste of time.

  5. Scout

    The “sanctuary city” concept is another one of those albino alligator in the NYC sewer kind of urban myths. The term really describes a difficult constitutional issue of whether municipalities can be compelled to do the bidding of the federal government in an area where federal primacy is undisputed: i.e., immigration policy. It’s a complicated issue, but the courts have been fairly clear, even quite recently, that city governments cannot be dragooned into being the enforcement arm for the federal government in situations where there is no probable cause for arrest and detention. This is a problem that, in a situation where we had competent governance in Congress and at the federal level, could be worked out. However, given the intense fear that Congress has of addressing immigration issues on any kind of comprehensive level, it will be difficult to get some kind of basic working arrangement in place.

  6. Scout

    PS: did I neglect to mention that the albino alligators are not only albino, ferocious and voracious, they are also blind from life in the Stygian darkness of the sewers?

    1. Hmmmm…mythical beasties.

  7. Starryflights

    I applaud the court’s excellent decision. The president is well within his rights to prioritize enforcement.

  8. middleman

    The ultra – conservatives here must be over the moon with Trump’s immigration plan. Deport not just the “illegals” but their families too! And amend the constitution to eliminate anchor babies! But bring the “good one’s” back? THAT might be a deal breaker!!

    1. Most of the people cheering on Trump really have no clue about what it takes to immigrate. Many of them really think those who want to come here get in a real line.

Comments are closed.