http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/05/19/20100519arizona-immigration-law-ICE-chief-opposes.html
Arizona's new law targeting illegal immigration is not "good government," a top Department of Homeland Security official said in Chicago on Wednesday.
John Morton, who heads U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said his agency will not necessarily process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona officials. The best way to reduce illegal immigration is through a comprehensive federal approach, not a patchwork of state laws, he said.
Whether they like the laws or not, when law enforcement brings to their attention people who are violating the immigration law, isn't ICE REQUIRED to look into it?
If not, then why bother having laws at all?
Who are the anarchists? Libertarians, who believe in small and limited government, or illegal immigration activists, who believe that we should ignore the laws that we have on the books?
And isn't it REALLY bad when the agency responsible for enforcing laws announces it intends to ignore those laws?
The fed's pick and choose which laws and which folks they go after. We've known that for decades. Out of every ten thousand pages of law passed by congress...we probably enforce fifty percent of the laws at best.
ReplyDeleteMy suggestion in this case? Come January 2011...Republicans control the house and come close in the senate. I'd start a simple bill...if ICE plays a delay game with one prisoner...document it and hand Homeland Security a $4k fee that comes straight out of their budget within four weeks (to the state or city involved). Next month? Bring the same prisoner out to hand over...no action? Another $4k fee taken from Homeland Security's budget.
They will eventually have to fire all of ICE and maybe half of Homeland Security...before they realize laws are laws. The loss of funding...will make them rethink this idea of which laws you want to disobey.
Ripley, I have long advocated that we hold elected officials and government bureaucrats personally responsible for misdeeds done in the name of duty... or under color of authority, in another sense. While not exactly what you proposed, I agree that some arrangement along those lines would do our government a great deal of good.
ReplyDelete