Did Obama’s suit against Arizona accidentally screw sanctuary cities?

Mayors from sanctuary cities are all lining up to stomp their feet and harrumph over Donald Trump’s decision to withhold federal funds for their lawlessness.

Of course, nobody is being a bigger drama queen than Bill de Blasio.

But, see, I have a question. Maybe there’s a legal eagle reading this who can answer it for me.

Remember back in 2010 when Arizona enacted SB-1070?

This was the “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act.”

In effect, it was the state of Arizona taking the initiative to enforce immigration laws since Obama refused to.

Naturally, the Obama Administration sued them.

The case made it all the way to the Supreme Court.

And SCOTUS ruled that when it comes to immigration enforcement, the Executive Branch has plenary power. Therefore, Arizona didn’t have the right to do something that went against what the Executive Branch was doing.

Just in case you don’t know. Plenary power means that all power for something is completely vested in one authority. That’s my off-the-top-my-head definition. I’m sure there’s a better way to phrase it. But you get the idea.

So here’s my question.

Did this SCOTUS ruling set a precedent that will now come back to bite the Left on the ass?

If the Executive Branch has plenary power over immigration enforcement, does that not mean that these harrumphing mayors and state attorneys general who are vowing to battle Trump have no legal recourse?

Seems to me, in my limited understanding, the SCOTUS ruling against SB-1070 gave the Trump Administration all the legal precedent they need to tell these jerks to go pound sand.

Despite playing the long game when it comes to destroying America, Leftists have a tendency to be crippled by short-sighted thinking.

Harry Reid getting rid of the filibuster in order to help Obama pack the lower courts is kind of biting the Democrats in the ass right now, isn’t it?

This is a problem with these guys.

And I think in their haste to prevent Arizona from being able to do something about their illegal alien problem, they’ve set themselves for a losing battle now that Trump is in the White House.

That’s just my take on this.

What do you think?

Hit the tip jar!

Please consider making a contribution to PatriotRetort.com. Hit DONATE button in the side bar. Even a few bucks can make a world of difference!

Share, share, share

4 thoughts on “Did Obama’s suit against Arizona accidentally screw sanctuary cities?

  • January 26, 2017 at 9:43 pm

    Me thinks you’re spot on. Progtard short sightedness will be their demise.


    Throughout the history of the United States the Supreme Court has upheld all manner of federal statutes regulating immigration. By contrast, Supreme Court decisions preclude states from passing legislation that directly impinges on this area of federal dominion. The Supreme Court’s basis for action is clear when the area regulated is naturalization. Article 1, § 8, clause 4, of the United States Constitution specifically grants Congress the power to establish a “uniform Rule of Naturalization.” By expressly allocating this power to Congress, the Constitution prevents the confusion that would result if individual states could bestow citizenship. The Constitution does not, however, explicitly provide that the power to deny admission or remove non-citizens rests with the federal government as opposed to state governments. Hence, in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government’s exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the plenary power to be an inherent sovereign power.

  • January 27, 2017 at 12:14 am

    The Left is constantly blundering from one unintended consequence t another.

  • January 27, 2017 at 1:21 am

    Dear Dianny, you need to read public law 82-414 and Title Eight. Both of these items are the bedrock of immigration law. Go to USCIS.GOV and look up the portion that addresses immigration law. The ideas you need to concentrate on are admissibility and bars of admissibility. Look up sections 212 and 237. Section 212 lists the bars of admissibility ( and most of the exemptions / waivers for these bars ) and section 237 addresses the means of deportation of aliens. Admissibility means whether an alien can become a Lawful Permanent Resident or not. This determination is made by a Federal Officer in an agency called United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. Or contact an immigration lawyer who you can trust and ask him to explain the law to you. Thanks Dianny.

Comments are closed.