That’s what Judge Andrew Napolitano says, and he’s too smart — and libertarian, but I repeat myself — to ignore.
If the supremacy clause applies, then yes the Arizona law is unconstitutional. But I don’t think it applies because Arizona is not trying to do something that is contrary to the intent of federal law. It’s trying to help enforce federal law.
If only the federal government may legally enforce federal law, then the states will have to repeal of of the laws they already have on the books to comply with federal mandates, and tell Elmer Fed to handle it himself.
Which, I could live with that. And mass quantities of hot, buttered popcorn.
wow its as if laws passed in 1996 don’t exist.
one more thing, the 1996 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) “authorized the Secretary of Homeland Security to enter into a written agreement to delegate the authority of enforcing federal immigration laws to a state or political sub-division of a state.” Still, through Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), local law enforcement officers can receive immigration enforcement training (287(g) cross designation training). Since that is the law of the land, how is Arizona’s law any different other than it asks its own officers to actually follow Federal statutes that were written in 1996?
“1996 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) “authorized the Secretary of Homeland Security to enter into a written agreement to delegate the authority of enforcing federal immigration laws to a state or political sub-division of a state.” ”
Wasn’t the post of Homeland Security established after 9/11…2001?
Not trying to be a smarta$$ or anything. Unless there indeed was such a person before Bush 43.
Ugh… if there’s one thing we can count on, it’s for the Republicans to fight a gigantic pile of stupidity with an even bigger pile of stupidity. Since illegal immigration mainly benefits businesses trying to get around minimum wage, employment tax, and union laws (eg, Republicans), it would make far more sense to work out some sort of meaningful guest worker program. But, no, with their eternal hard-on for authoritah they’d rather have a system that gives more power to law enforcement that is guaranteed to be widely abused, especially with Joe Arapio around.
“That’s what Judge Andrew Napolitano says, and he’s too smart — and libertarian, but I repeat myself — to ignore.”
Napolitano is the guy who on Stossel’s show a few weeks ago said that we shouldn’t have an army or a navy. (Stossel had an episode explaining libertarian thought.)
Yep, he and the rest of you libertarians are regular frickin geniuses. Such grasp of human nature and history.
@SteveN – IIRC, he was arguing for privatization of national defense. Certainly a debatable idea, but that’s not to say he was suggesting we walk around with our pants down as you were implying.
…it would make far more sense to work out some sort of meaningful guest worker program.
That would run afoul of the supremacy clause.
You do understand we’re talking about a state law enacted in Arizona, not a proposal before Congress, right?
@Evil Red Scandi – you and I both remember incorrectly. What Napolitano actually said was “Who says we have to have an army and a navy and who says it has to be paid for by taxes?” He doesn’t say anything about privatization, but makes what I consider a somewhat odd point about paying for the functions of government through fees and land sales. I consider it a bit odd because a fee is still really a tax, albeit a more “fairly” distributed one. And because one thing that bugs me (and I think it would bug him) is how much land the federal government claims to own. If I were living in one of the western states I would be more than a little upset that DC claimed ownership of upwards of 90% of my state, depriving its citizens of the ability to develop or conserve it as they see fit.
Anyway, this particular exchange starts in response to a question about 1:20 in and you can check it out here if you want:
In any event, I think the point I was getting at (basically that libertarians tend to be naive about national defense issues) is born out by the actual quote if he thinks that the need for a military is open to question.
The problem with mass immigration of people with low intelligence is that it will lower our overall I.Q. for the USA and bodies without big brains wear out and who’s going to pay for people who only serve a singular purpose and then their bodies tire out and they have no other function in society?
Yeah, that’s harsh, but, that’s what were lookin’ at folks.
You want to pay for a society of pay-for-work impoverished people?
I sure don’t.
I do beg your pardon, but are you a Dalek?
Well said, sir. Kudos.
A Canadian posed this very question about South Asians:
Don’t be a dolt:
This particular bit of stupidity needs to be stepped on, hard.
In my experience (which is pretty wide), the Mexican immigrants to the U.S. over the last couple of decades (both legal and illegal) show no discernible difference in average IQ from the average U.S. population. Some of them are very bright and ambitious. Some of them, not so much. But I’ve not met any lazy ones–they’re here to work and work hard.
What they DON’T have is the IQ test required for admission to middle-class jobs. That’s the purpose of a college degree in the U.S.–the university system is the only U.S. institution allowed to sort people systematically by IQ, and it is therefore the gatekeeper to better-paying jobs. It is difficult for a poor Mexican immigrant to go to college, so they do low-skill jobs.
There’s IQ, and then there’s the IQ test. Don’t confuse the two.
Quiz: How many Mexican-Americans graduate from High School, Neil?
How Automation Systems Will Interact with Dysgenics and Immigration
The USA is going to be in BIG trouble if we give amnesty to all of the illegals in our country. WAKE UP.
How many high schools shove Latinos into ESL classes designed to prevent them from learning English?
Furthermore, you’ve provided links to several studies purporting to show that Latino immigrants suffer from a culture that does not value education (which I don’t know enough to have an opinion about). However, you’ve shown no data at all that backs up your claim that Latinos have a lower IQ than the average American.
You are spewing pure ignorant bigotry of the worst sort.
Dude, are you saying the bell-curve is RACIST?
Delia, I don’t think you understand what a bell curve is, or what IQ is. Unless you can actually show some evidence that Latinos have a lower-than average IQ.
Firstly, we are talking about MEXICANS (the whole ‘hispanic’ hodge-podge is a mix of white people and Indians).
2. For example, the gap between whites and Mexican-Americans on the SAT is 77
percent of the size of the gap between whites and blacks.
6. IQ reports from Latin America are not encouraging either‹Richard Lynn and
Tatu Vanhanen in their important book “IQ and the Wealth of Nations” found, on
a scale with white Americans as 100, scores like: Mexico, 87; Ecuador, 80;
Peru 90; Puerto Rico, 84; Guatemala, 79; Argentina, 96; Uruguay, 96. (Read my
review for all the caveats and implications on the book.)
And, Neil, before you cry “bigot” again, riddle me this:
Why are Black & Hispanics the main targets for Affirmative Action?
Poor Asians with high intelligence aren’t targeted get a leg-up.
Poor East Indians with high intelligence aren’t targeted to get a leg-up.
Why is the TRUTH so damned painful?
Get over it and realize that dumbing down our already over-burdened society is a BAD IDEA.
If Mexicans are so GD smart, Mexicans wouldn’t be rushing our GD borders!
Fine, we’ll talk specifically about Mexican-Americans.
That link you just referred to talks in great detail about the influence of culture on IQ; the IQ (at least as measured by the standardized tests you refer to) is plastic and can be increased by working the brain harder. There is just not a big enough IQ difference between Americans and Mexicans to claim that it’s an inherent genetic difference that will make future Americans dumber through miscegenation. There’s too many cultural factors to make that determination. Show me some data from third-generation Mexican-Americans, controlled for parents’ economic status, and maybe I’ll think about it. But you are making claims that you simply can’t support.
I’m not defending illegal immigration and I’m not defending unlimited Mexican immigration. Large-scale migrations like this tend to start wars somewhere down the line. I’m not even claiming that all races have identical IQ. But we’ve been mixing races for a long time in this country, and there have always been people like you who claim that’s a bad thing. There’s no apparent effect from it so far though, and you haven’t come up with anything that says otherwise.
Neil, the people rushing our borders aren’t the cream of the crop. They are the lower end of the intelligence spectrum. Do you really think the best and brightest geniuses of Mexican decent are trying to get into our country ILLEGALLY?
How many low-skill laborers (i.e. produce pickers) can our country support if we allow Amnesty for ILLEGALS in an already bankrupt country?
“I’m not defending illegal immigration and I’m not defending unlimited Mexican immigration.”
But, that’s what *I* was talkin’ bout, homey! SHEESH!
The LEGAL Mexican immigrants in our country are some of the smartest, warmest, kindest, hard-workin’ folks. The anchor-babies? Not so much. The Illegals? Sorry, NO.
Mass immigration is going to hurt everyone and especially low-skilled LEGAL immigrants and poor people of ALL ethnicities and yes, lower the overall I.Q. of our country. Yes, if people with low I.Q. mix with high I.Q. Jews/Asians/Whites their I.Q. goes up but, face it, that’d DUMBING down the Jewish/Asian/White I.Q.
You want idiocracy writ large? Pfft!
I’m 1/2 Finnish/-Dutch/Irish/English
Husband: 3/4 Italian 1/4 German
You think there isn’t some ‘black’ in there somewhere?
Napolitano is full of shit, as the bill in no way says anything like the police can stop anyone they want, based on what they look like. Those who take ten seconds to examine the bill will find out that the power to check for papers only occurs after an otherwise-justified stop, such as a traffic violation.
Arizona metaphorically bent over backwards to avoid civil rights violations with this law, yet they still are pilloried. This is yet one more example of political correctness run amok.
This is just one more way for Libertarians to indulge in racial or social guilt while they rail against “big government.” Do they feel this makes them less racist while they go after Obama with all guns blazing?
The bill almost certainly will be held unconstitutional (whether you think it is or not), but as this unfolds it seems more likely that Arizona was trying to force the Fed’s hand rather than replace the Fed with itself.
And if that was their plan, IMO it is working.
Delia, I disagree with your basic assumption. Immigrants are not the dumbest, they are the “go getters.” The ones who refuse to stay at home and starve but rather will hit the road and try their luck somewhere where their hard work just might pay off.
The same people who built this country and made it the world’s best.
You are correct, Tim. LEGAL immigrants are not ‘the dumbest’.
The bunch rushing our borders ILLEGALLY are not in that ‘bunch’.
I live in Texas and I am NOT happy with what the illegal (not legal, but ILLEGAL) immigration situation is doing to my state. However, these people aren’t any dumber than folks from any other country (including ours).
Many rural areas of Mexico are equal to a 3rd World country and most people there have extremely limited access to education. That doesn’t make them dumb, it makes them undereducated. There’s a huge difference.
As I’ve said, I am distressed by the illegal immigration situation here, but suggesting that these people are “dumb” is not only false, but a red herring.
Texican, you are clueless, read up:
Btw, Asians are on average smarter than whites and Jews are wayyy smarter than us all (must piss Hitler off to no end lmao).
“one more thing, the 1996 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) “authorized the Secretary of Homeland Security to enter into a written agreement to delegate the authority of enforcing federal immigration laws to a state or political sub-division of a state.” ”
**This has to have been an amendment or it is just false. The Department of Homeland Security did not exist in 1996; it came into being in 2003.
When Shakira stated “that I am pretty much undocumented” is absolutely ridiculous. She came to our country with documents. When entering into the United States legitimately you must show your passport, which Shakira certainly did. By challenging Arpaio to come and get her because she left her passport at her 5 star hotel clearly indicates Shakira does not understand the Arizona Senate Bill 1070. By Shakria not carrying her passport or identification does not mean she will be arrested. One must engage in illegal activity to be arrested and asked for identification, which most likely Shakira will not be engaging in illegal activity. For someone to rally other individuals without fully understanding the SB 1070 is irresponsible. People (including Shakira) need to take the time to fully understand the law before grand standing to an audience who expects her to be informed. Shakira should respect the United State’s freedom of speech and should be fully educated on the law before leading an emotional charged crowd. This law is not new, it is enforcing what is already in place by the Federal Government. It is a Federal crime to be an illegal alien thus the term “illegal alien.” Crime has become an increasing problem in Arizona. The law is designed to punish criminals for being criminals not for being illegal immigrants. Which all members of our community should embrace. If the Federal Government would take illegal immigration seriously there could be alternatives for this law. But the Federal Government ignored Arizona’s immigration problem and decided they could not rely on the Federal Government for help. Arizona’s actions are directed against the members of the immigrant community that are criminals. Anyone, citizen or non-citizen, should agree that the increased violence around our boarders needs to be addressed. Immigrants and citizens need to work together to reduce crime. Shame on you Shakria for further inflaming a passionate subject that should be addressed rationally. Shame on you everyone else for not educating yourself on the SB 1070. For those of you that want to be educated you can read the full law here
I just read the best reaction to the immigration law ever on CNN. Awesome! “OK… so a cop’s title is “Law Enforcement Officer”… in order to be an “Illegal Immigrant” you have to be breaking the law of the United States of America… why would we not expect our “Law Enforcement Officers” to enforce the law of the United States of America? This is not a racist statement, this is not an anti-immigrant statement, I’m not a tea-partier, Im a slightly left of center gay American whose partner of 8 years is a Canadian. My partner goes through a massive ordeal in order to stay in this country legally, which he does… Im not able to sponsor him for permanent residence, and there is no legal pathway for him to gain permanent residence… so for now we live with renewing his temporary status based on his job and NAFTA, hoping for either an employer willing to sponsor him for permanent residence (a 5 year long, very expensive process) or the repeal/invalidation of DOMA, or the passage of the UAFA bill. He has to prove his legality in this country quite often, and is required to have his passport with proof of his legality on him at all times… I am more a victim of discrimination, as a US Citizen who cannot sponsor my permanent partner for US residence, than these illegal aliens who are breaking the law of the united states”
Under the Constitution, federal law is the supreme law of the land and states may not pass laws that seek to overshadow federal statutes. The AZ law adheres to the doctrine of concurrent enforcement – the legal principle that preemption will not be found where a state law prohibits conduct that is already prohibited under federal law.
I have no problem ignoring anybody’s opinion on legal matters – except for the court with jurisdiction.
And that ain’t Neapolitano’s court, so who cares what he thinks? Opinions are like rectal sphincters, at they say.
Comments are closed.