After the recent vote on the Arizona anti-illegal immigration law, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a stinging, 22 page dissent criticizing President Barack Obama's announcement earlier this month that he would stay the deportation of young illegal immigrants and suggested that the federal government does not want to enforce its immigration laws... Problem is that the Justice, who for all purposes is supposed to serve impartial and blindly, went on with such "pearls of wisdom" that betrays his agenda and bias:
"Arizona bears the brunt of the country's illegal immigration problem. Its citizens feel themselves under siege by large numbers of illegal immigrants who invade their property, strain their social services, and even place their lives in jeopardy. Federal officials have been unable to remedy the problem,and indeed have recently shown that they are unwilling to do so. Thousands of Arizona's estimated 400,000 illegal immigrants—including not just children but men and women under 30—are now assured immunity from en*forcement, and will be able to compete openly with Ari*zona citizens for employment"
Sure, Justice, illegal immigrants are immune to the reach of the law and have assured the same rights than citizens. Maybe it's time for the likes of you to live a little like an illegal immigrant and see for yourself how easy they have, with such perks as quaick and free access to welfare, healthcare, unemployment, high paying jobs and other social services that you accuse them of having the rights to... with the additional advantage of not being bothered by the law anymore!
"Scalia also repeatedly referenced Obama's policy of prosecutorial discretion, which directs Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to prioritize deporting the illegal immigrants who are frequent border crossers, have committed crimes, or recently entered the country illegally. The Obama administration has deported a record number of illegal immigrants, but its prosecutorial discretion policy still draws the ire of illegal immigration hawks.
Scalia directly referred to Obama's immigration enforcement policy as "lax" at one point."
So Obama has deported illegal immigrants at a pace that far exceeds that of the Bush administration, but he can only find time to criticise Obama, I don't remember him ever saying anything during the Bush administration...
"Must Arizona's ability to protect its borders yield to the reality that Congress has provided inadequate funding for federal enforcement—or, even worse, to the executive's unwise targeting of that funding?" Scalia asked. Later, he added: "What I do fear—and what Arizona and the States that support it fear—is that 'federal policies' of nonen*forcement will leave the States helpless before those evil effects of illegal immigration."
maybe it's not the executive targeting of funding, but the evil effects of an evil Congress?
"Arizona's entire immigration law should be upheld, Scalia wrote, because it is "entitled" to make its own immigration policy. At one point, he cites the fact that before the Civil War, Southern states could exclude free blacks from their borders to support the idea that states should be able to set their own immigration policies"
"nice" reach over there, Mr. Scalia, but really, no comment
... not only the comparison was distasteful, but the suggestion for each State to have its own immigration policy would certainly not cause any chaos, right?