Marti Oakley        Copyright 2012- All Rights Reserved


On June 25th, 2012, the Supreme Court issued its final ruling on SB 1070, the law passed by Arizona to deal with illegal immigration that has been not only allowed by the federal government, but also encouraged.  The court struck down three of the primary points of the legislation, yet left one standing: Police can inquire about immigration status if an individual is being investigated for a criminal act, while they have him/her in custody.

SCOTUS went on to rule that the individual in question cannot be held longer than usual while that investigation occurs, but issued no guidelines on how long [usual] is, or could be.  This blatant omission of course is laying the groundwork for subsequent lawsuits brought by illegal immigrants in the future who will claim abuse.

It is alleged that the private prison industry which is flourishing in states like Arizona, actually wrote the legislation in anticipation of greater numbers of prisoners from which greater profits could be made.  This is more than likely, true.  The private corporate prison is a fast growing business in the US as these corporations engage in human trafficking for profit.  I cannot think of any other way to efficiently describe what the business is of these prisons, otherwise.

SCOTUS’ main contention was that the States cannot overstep the Federal government to deal with illegal immigration.  That is the job of the federale’s.  Only they aren’t doing their job and have not for more than two decades as the US has been steadily colonized by illegal immigrants who have found protection and privilege provided by the same agencies charged with defending our borders from just such an influx of illegal residents.

From the newly and constantly revised US Code & Title 8, regarding defense of our inland and coastal borders and just whom is charged with defending that border, we find this revision in the code:

(10)In the event the Attorney General determines that an actual or imminent mass influx of aliens arriving off the coast of the United States, or near a land border, presents urgent circumstances requiring an immediate Federal response, the Attorney General may authorize any State or local law enforcement officer, with the consent of the head of the department, agency, or establishment under whose jurisdiction the individual is serving, to perform or exercise any of the powers, privileges, or duties conferred or imposed by this chapter or regulations issued thereunder upon officers or employees of the Service. 

I am wondering how this code which includes authorization by the AG of any local law enforcement officer will conflict with the SCOTUS ruling which clearly prohibits the states agents from engaging in enforcement of illegal immigration.  Didn’t SCOTUS just say it was unlawful for them to do so?

Previously the code had been revised to include the Homeland Security secretary, specifically, but it appears that agency is taking a back seat to the AG.

While SCOTUS was quick to point out that the states have no authority to enforce federal immigration laws, they conveniently never sited the Fed for failing to enforce those laws themselves.  Specifically never mentioned, was the Attorney General (Eric Holder) who was up to his traitorous eyeballs in Fast & Furious, the gun running scheme wherein he coordinated the efforts to move thousands of guns of all kinds into Mexico to arm drug cartels for the most part, against not only the border patrol, but against US citizens living along that border and the Mexican military.

Why would the US government do such a thing?

I am of the opinion that the effect of Fast & Furious, had it never been exposed, would have been used to support the UN Small Arms Treaty intended to disarm the citizens of the US., using the claim that [we] the US public had caused the increase in gun violence on the border by selling, trading or otherwise supplying the cartels and criminals with guns.  The only way to stop the violence?  The UN Small Arms Treaty, ending or severely restricting gun rights and the 2nd Amendment.  I believe this is malfeasance: the use of office to cause threat or harm to the people (that would be us) you are charged with protecting and defending.

What does it all mean?

In my opinion, this whole lawsuit against Arizona was a setup deal from start to finish.  SB 1070 was constructed and passed with full knowledge and in anticipation of a federal lawsuit in the Supreme Court in order to set a desired precedent to be used in the future to preclude states from actively defending themselves against illegal immigration.  This gets everyone off the hook both state and federal, while never addressing the underlying cause of the issue: illegal immigration.

Had Arizona actually been serious about defending itself from illegal immigration, they would not have even contemplated the contents of SB 1070, as other far more valuable and relevant options were available.  Instead of passing what was known to be a law that was dead on arrival, they would have filed suit against the Attorney General for failure to perform his duties as prescribed under US Code & Title 8 and a subsequent suit against ICE for the same failures.  But none of this was ever done.  It was never even considered.

But this whole issue, whether in SCOTUS or in the state of Arizona was never about anything other than giving the supreme court the opportunity to issue a ruling preventing the states from self defending against illegal immigration.

While Lame Street Media spent the evening chanting the phrase “our immigration system is broken”, not one of them mentioned that the only part that is broken is enforcement.  We have so many laws on the books now and we know who is charged with enforcing those laws and we know who isn’t doing their job and who is actively working against the people of the US.

How about a new law or a lawsuit dealing with those things?