Justice for Immigrants rally in Los Angeles.
New York's Secretary of State, Cesar Perales, discusses New York's program to help young immigrants apply for Deferred Action, a federal program that starts today.
John, you are not going to get any argument from me regarding states' "rights," however, that has nothing to do with enforcing national borders, which is the job of the Feds. If Arizona wants to pass "laws" to protect itself from "scourges" of people they don't like, then good for them, as long as they do not violate the constitution.
And Sheldon, please read this salient short excerpt from McCarthy's last article in july 2012 (if the BL Producer doesn't mind):
Why should a state remain in a union whose government will neither protect it nor tolerate its fundamental right to protect itself?
there are all kinds of powers that are shared in a system of dual sovereignty. When they conflict, it is not a given that federal power must prevail. Contrary to what appears to be a bipartisan consensus, the Supremacy Clause does not mean federal power always wins; it means the Constitution always wins. The Constitution does not subordinate the states and the people to the federal government; to the contrary, its main objective is to suppress the federal government, to cabin its powers to a few, limited areas of national concern. Progressives are trying to save the world, but the Framers were more concerned about saving the states.
Arizona’s sovereign duty is to protect its citizens from the scourge of illegal immigration. Washington’s sovereign duty is to assist Arizona in that endeavor or, at a minimum, refrain from impeding the state’s defense measures. If the federal government, on a mere inferential theory crafted by federal judges, can usurp the power that Arizona must have, then we no longer have dual sovereignty. That is, we no longer have the core guarantee that induced the states to join the Union.
It is cold comfort that conservatives are fine with this arrangement as long as Leviathan proclaims its usurpations with sufficient clarity.
Sorry I was gone and could hear the interview, but I will download it later to hear it.
But to answer "John from office": What I posted this morning WAS my commentary. It was MY theory and understanding of the law and no one else's, to my knowledge, with respect to what Sec. Perales is doing. If you want to call it a tome, then you don't know what a tome is.
And to answer "sheldon from Brooklyn": "enforcing national borders is the job of the feds" is consistent to what the Court has ruled, but the Court is wrong and the Constitution is not being followed.
As usual, the best advocate for that conclusion is former US Attorney Andrew C. McCarthy, and I urge everyone to read the following articles he published:
Winning the Case, Losing the Principle Arizona won, but the sovereignty of states suffered a setback.May 28, 2011http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/268341/winning-case-losing-principle-andrew-c-mccarthy
Sovereignty, Preempted Even the conservative justices don't understand states’ rights. July 2, 2012http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/304214/sovereignty-preempted-andrew-c-mccarthyAUDIO VERSION:http://media.blubrry.com/outloudopinion/traffic.libsyn.com/nro/20120702McCarthy.mp3
As it says on the package, it's pronounced faye.
Given that Romney has said that Arizona is the model for immigration in this country, I do not share the secretary's faith in him not deporting these applicants
deport illegal aliens. breaking the law, is breaking the law. if i drive drunk and get caught i have to deal with the consequences. if you come here illegally and get caught, so should you. bye bye
Oh, also, at the information session we learned that NJ Dream Act Coalition (NJDAC -http://www.njdac.org/) is taking volunteers to help at an application drive on August 25th. Therefore, if you are available, want to learn more about, and have the time, this would be a great to get involved.
Would it be a good idea to set up an additional URL for the website w/a more intuitive name, something more obviously about immigration, that would take people to the same site? A lot of people probably don't know it's even called "Deferred Action," & the name is so devoid of any connection w/what it's about that it might be hard to remember.
Are we going to tell the truth here? Once a young person is here legally you CAN'T DEPORT THEIR PARENTS -- YOU CANN'T SEPARATE FAMILIES.
"almost beyond the acceptable of any government" to use the information they receive to enforce the law?"
is this man naive?
or is he advocating that Obama create a wide space between legal and illegal?
what if someone returned to Ecuador or another country within the last 5 years -- however briefly, say to settle an estate matter? Are they still eligible -- and if not, would they open up to deportation detention? In reality I'd guess that every immigrant knows someone in that position. I know someone who spent over 2 years in deportation after returning to their home country for a week -- thinking he was going to pick up his green card. This person was a 35 year old successful professional who lived in the US for 20 years along with the entire rest of his family.
what your guest is saying reminds me of the words from John Lennons song imagine. I wish it were true but it sounds like a lottery scam that local police use to round up probation violaters.
I meant my comment as irony
One of the things that corrupt lawyers will do is tell you that given the "complications" of your case, it would be best to get a lawyer - them. I was at an information session this past weekend and several attorneys were there to give free consultations. Many session are available in NJ, NY and are co-sponsored by DREAM/immigrant-supportive groups: http://www.njdac.org/ , http://www.nysylc.org/, http://laldef.org/, http://aaldef.org/
Did I hear a promo for today's show concerning Julia Child?
Many Thanks and Love Your Show!-Ron Carter
If a "deferred deployment" person is hired, and then deployed in a year or two, will the government repay the employer for training and loss of business?
If not, it sounds too risky a scheme for the employer and for the immigrant to buy into.
So after 2 years maybe they can become American citizens and then the government can target them for assissination...btw we have an a problem with con artists targetting people filing for this program...high comedy.
@gary from queens - this is not amnesty
Gary wrote his usual tome on the subject. I was hoping for a comment.
Gary, state sovereignty may be guaranteed in the constitution but enforcing national borders is the job of the feds. I will be the first to admit that the feds have done an awful job.
One should check how many Hispanics the Obama Administration has deported. His image is not as many, but I hear he has deported more than previous admninstrations, and broken up families to do it.
BTW, Justice Scalia's scathing dissent in 'Arizona' was noteworthy, claiming that the majority rendered state sovereignty----guarranteed in the Constitution----to be of no legal significance any longer, if they cannot determine who shall cross their own borders, even if it to reinforce (i.e. supplement) federal law.
Cesar Perales is breaking the law. States have no jurisdiction in either supplementing or hindering the new amnesty rules.
How so? In two ways:
(1) In Arizona v. Napolitano a couple of months ago, the majority on the Supreme Court upheld the federal government's contention it has sole jurisdiction in----and that states shall not enforce----US immigration codes and regulations. That's even if states implement the exact same laws as the federal government. By implementing policy in support of Obama's amnesty for young illegal immigrants, Perales is enforcing federal immigration law, which, based on new case law, is illegal for states to do.
(2) Secretary Janet Napolitano stated clearly and specifically, under oath in Congressional testimony, that this amnesty policy did not stem from an executive order. Rather, she said the new rules that applied to young illegal immigrants were issued by her; that she duly informed the President of her decision; and that they would be implemented by her, as head of the regulatory agency responsible for enforcing federal immigration law, to the extent that prosecutorial discretion would warrant.
But it is HER prosecutorial discretion (not Perales') she was referring to, based on the finite resources OF HER AGENCY (not Perales'), which she claimed was governing that policy decision. In questioning during the hearing, she explained that she can and would, at HER discretion (not Perales'), amend the policy going foreward (i.e. to as not affect those already in the system under the amnesty regime).
Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more.
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm
your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the
right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the
Comment Guidelines before
By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's
It's your neighborhood, your city, your country, your world, and now your website. Brian Lehrer delves into the issues and links them to real life.