NY Will Actively Subvert Immigration Laws
One of the arguments raised against the Arizona immigration law (in addition to it being the modern incarnation of Nazism) was that states had no authority under the U.S. Constitution to conduct their own immigration policies.
So I presume we will hear howls of constitutional outrage against New York Governor David Paterson, who has announced that New York will actively seek to subvert the federal immigration laws by creating special pardon panels to expunge criminal records for legal aliens to help them avoid deportation proceedings.
As reported by The NY Times:
In a major rebuke of federal immigration policy, Gov. David A. Paterson announced on Monday that he would create a special pardon panel to review cases involving legal immigrants who are at risk of deportation for minor or old convictions.
Mr. Paterson’s move will give many immigrants facing deportation renewed hope and places the governor into the middle of the country’s immigration debate.
The announcement comes as the federal government has taken an increasingly hard line in its interpretation of existing immigration law, leaving a growing number of legal immigrants who have criminal records facing deportation.
“Some of our immigration laws, particularly with respect to deportation, are embarrassingly and wrongly inflexible,” Mr. Paterson said in a speech on Monday at an annual gathering of the state’s top judges.
The difference between New York and Arizona on immigration is that New York actively subverts federal law, while Arizona adheres to federal law; New York is conducting its own immigration policy while Arizona is not.
Yet Arizona government officials are called lawless Nazis and racists, while Paterson gets a pass.
Which proves, once again, that the accusations of Nazism and racism were cover to make enforcement of the immigration laws more difficult.
Update: One of the commenters seeks to justify Paterson’s actions on the ground that the federal laws are unjust. But you can’t have it both ways, claiming that states cannot conduct their own immigration policy when you don’t like the result, but can when you like the result. Because if that is the standard, then the Arizona law should be fine because it is supported by 60% of the U.S. population versus 36% who oppose it.
Saturday Night Card Game (When The Race Card Met Godwin)
Do NOT Read This Supreme Court Decision
Just Say It – “All Immigration Laws Are Racist”
Follow me on Twitter and Facebook
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
The definition of insanity is…..New York.
AMERICAN TAXPAYERS COME LAST
Homeland Security Czar Janet Napolitano lied to the American people about the border fence. It was never built to original specifications. She said the actual fence stretched 745 miles? It doesn't? large regions are still old barbed wire fencing. Other areas are restricted by vehicle barriers. In some cases none functioning cameras and movement sensors is the only enforcement. The Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations bill specifically eliminated the main funding mandate of the Secure Fence Act of 2006 as a two layer fence. Learn the facts about these lies at AMERICAN PATROL.
Washington has already appropriated over a trillion dollars to fight two isolated foreign wars and also assisting in building Israels wall. If Amnesty is passed the costs will dwarf the two wars we are now fighting. But the taxpayers of our nation get the budget cuts for our national security fence, and get–NOTHING, to protect us from the deadly insurgency of drug smugglers and millions of illegal aliens. No wonder Arizona had to enact a strict immigration police limitation. on law
What do most politicians and entertainers know about living in the real world today? Absolutely–NOTHING! Shotages of energy, crammed highways and ever growing pollution of the environment–and humans too. Here to do citizens-legal residents harm. PUT THE NATIONAL GUARD ON THE BORDER–NOW!
The Tea Party and thousands of anti-illegal immigrant organizations, will fight to stop any type or form of AMNESTY. Any kind of Amnesty will just bring in millions more people, waiting their turn for the next path to citizenship. Those here can bring in millions of close family members, which we as taxpayers will end up supporting. If Amnesty passes we will be obligated to give more government entitlements. Before President Obama signs the final document, the border will be swarmed by hundreds of thousands who will arrive by plane or ship. Finally the legal immigrants who have waited for years, will be upstaged by the illegal criminals here.
AMNESTY–or the Immigration Overhaul. It should be up to the people by popular vote or by referendum, because giving 20 to 30 million foreigners, a rapid path to citizenship is an unjustifiable outrage. I tend–NOT–to trust the majority of polls, because the actual questions can easily be manipulated. In other words–the way the questions are directed towards the recipient, can be favorable for whatever the poll enquirer wants to hear? It will be a major catastrophe on the Federal, state, county and city public welfare benefits inflicted on our nation. We cannot afford it and it will divide the country, as other states like Arizona have been forced to enact their own immigration laws. The government we voted for refuses to protect the border or the majority for the American people, because of NAFTA and its diplomacy with the corrupt government next door. There should be no restraints on funding any of these measures when it comes to the American people's protection, for jobs, taxes, infrastructure, ecosystem, population growth and more. To learn more go to NumbersUSA website
With ALL that is going on in New York AND the country right now, what the hell is Paterson's point in doing this?
Question: Did Patterson consult his attorneys before doing such a thing? Does the NY Attorney General go along with this? Somebody stop this man who calls himself a governor. He is devoid of judgment and common sense. Why when he has all that he can do to keep our state out of fiscal decline does he take time for this? Who appointed him in charge of this? Does he really think he has some kind of political career ahead of him? Oh but I am being racist. Sorry.
So, do you guys actually support deporting legal residents for petty drug crimes?
Some minor drug crimes are considered aggravated felonies. For example, 24-year-old Mario Pacheco entered the United States with his mother in 1981 when he was two months old. He lived in Chicago with his parents as a lawful permanent resident for 20 years, where he attended public schools. Mario obtained his general equivalency diploma (GED) and went to work right away.
At the age of 19, in 2001, Mario was convicted for possession of 2.5 grams of marijuana with intent to distribute, which is a misdemeanor offense under Illinois law, but is also considered an aggravated felony under immigration law. The drugs were discovered in Mario's car after he was stopped for a broken taillight. Mario explained that he was hanging out with the wrong crowd at the time, that he often drove friends in his car, and that the drugs belonged to one of his friends. He was sentenced to one year of "supervision"-a sentence that is less severe than probation.
At this writing, Mario was still trying to appeal his deportation, but his prospects did not look good. Mario works about 60 hours a week in the shipping department at a large warehouse and is the father of three US citizen children, ages two to six. Mario's parents also spoke with a Human Rights Watch researcher. They both are lawful permanent residents: his mother has worked at the same company for more than 20 years and has a graduate degree in business, which she obtained by attending courses at night while working full time. His mother spoke about how stressful her son's impending deportation was for her and the family: "If you do something very bad, then I'm not saying anything about that. But he's being punished for something he did when he was a teenager. He didn't even go to jail."
@AJB – so is the answer that states can conduct their own immigration policy when you like the result?
As far as Patterson is concerned, at least he will be gone soon and someone competent (hopefully) will guide New York.
As far as immigration policy, it is a shambles and very draconian. While persons who otherwise have been good people are deported for minor offenses, illegals who commit murder are protected in some areas. The truth is what we need is true immigration reform with thougth to a sense of realiy. Unless you are going to round up all the illegal immigrants in this country and their American children and deport them, then something must be done. Otherwise we continue to have a two-tier system in this nation that is in violation of the Consitution.(Whether we like it or not, illegals live in an underworld in many cases akin to the standard of a slave) Additionally turning a blind eye to illegal immigration not only fosters drug trafficking, but human trafficking of all kinds. This includes those who employ coyotes to bring them across the border, but more heinously those, mostly women and children, that are trafficked for the sex trade.
The human cost is overwhelming and the federal government is complicit in evil by their inaction.
Read my blog on the subject:
Hey Mario, don't smoke dope or hang out with the "wrong crowd" when you being here is hanging in the balance.
I'll bet money there is more to that story than meets the eye. Either way, this is a bright line law for a reason.
How can a law at the state level that reflects, almost exactly, federal law subvert the law? How does a law at the state level that counters, almost exactly, federal law NOT subvert it? Answer: it's the Liberal Hypocrisy Hustle ("Do the hustle!" …sorry, my disco days are showing!).
All things that the liberal left say are good are good; all things the liberal left say are bad are bad – regardless of the facts, reality, or logic. I am truly beginning to believe that Liberalism is a mental illness. Only someone who is so sold out to the "party" and its agenda can rationalize this one. The obvious cliche is, "All (ideas/laws/viewpoints) are equal, but some (ideas/laws/viewpoints) are more equal than others." When those ideas/laws/viewpoints are liberal and leftist, they are just fine.
Actually, there is some reasonability in this.
There is a law s 1325 that says that if you are an aggravated felon, and you reenter the country we throw you in prision for up to 20 years. that seems reasonable until you learn what counts as an aggravated felony.
An aggravated felony according to law is basically a drug crime or crime of violence. what counts as a crime of violence? burglary. because if you're caught, there might be violence. stealing a car, because if you are driving someone else's car you might not drive as carefully. it goes on and on. it is really more than a little ridiculous.
For instance, i knew of one case where a guy got in a bar fight. now first, in any bar fight, you have to think there is a decent defense of self-defense. but his lawyer says, "don't worry about. just plead guilty. you will do your time and then no biggie." except that lawyer didn't know jack about immigration law, and the defendant was a green card holder. So he becomes an aggravated felon and is thrown out of hte country. but he has a family, etc. so he sneaks back in. so now he is off to prison for 20 years.
And if you dig through the legislative history, you learn that this law was actually part of what i call the Al Capone theory of law enforcement. it goes like this. Al Capone was a mobster. But we didn't convict him of being a mobster–we convicted him of tax evasion.
The idea was the same thing, here. alot of major drug lords violate this law. so the idea was to give prosecutors a killer tool to use against them. the only thing is that major drug lords have good lawyers. on the other hand, Chico the gardner can't afford his own lawyer, so they go after the gardners, instead of the really bad ones, to pad their conviction rates.
i am pretty gung ho about enforcement. but this is over the top even for me. and if patterson is going to try to prevent the unjust applications of this law, i support it.
But then again Patterson seems like such an idiot, i wouldn't trust him to get anything right.
let me amend my last post. the bar fighter was told he would get probation. kind of an important fact to f— up and leave out. sorry.
"So, do you guys actually support deporting legal residents for petty drug crimes?"
Sure. They knew the laws when they came in. Shoulda kept their noses clean.
Why do you insist on carving exceptions out of the laws — without actually changing the laws?
"There is a law s 1325 that says that if you are an aggravated felon, and you reenter the country we throw you in prision for up to 20 years. that seems reasonable until you learn what counts as an aggravated felony."
Actually, it seems reasonable even after learning what counts as an aggravated felony.
Both state approaches seem reasonable to me. Arizona's is obviously a good idea, and I've always believed that executives have underused the pardon power. The proper way of dealing with relatively rare cases of unjust application of broadly valuable laws should be executive review and pardon, not weakening the law in all cases.
It sounds like a conflict between the letter of the law, and intent. The intent of s1325 was to bar violent felons from the country, and to be able to kick 'em out. The letter of the law is now barring long-term residents with a single infraction (bar fight and possession as listed above)
So as a stop-gap measure until Federal Law is modified to match the original intent, Paterson is setting up a procedure to work around the issue. (or at least that's what they say)
I really can't argue with that. Now what this panel will eventually morph into….