Obama Issues Statement On SCOTUS Arizona Immigration Law Ruling

Tyler Durden's picture

Just out from the TOTUS, who manages to convert a Supreme Court slap into a piece of pre-election propaganda like no other.

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling this morning on Arizona’s immigration law, President Obama released this statement:

I am pleased that the Supreme Court has struck down key provisions of Arizona's immigration law. What this decision makes unmistakably clear is that Congress must act on comprehensive immigration reform. A patchwork of state laws is not a solution to our broken immigration system—it’s part of the problem.

 

At the same time, I remain concerned about the practical impact of the remaining provision of the Arizona law that requires local law enforcement officials to check the immigration status of anyone they even suspect to be here illegally. I agree with the Court that individuals cannot be detained solely to verify their immigration status. No American should ever live under a cloud of suspicion just because of what they look like. Going forward, we must ensure that Arizona law enforcement officials do not enforce this law in a manner that undermines the civil rights of Americans, as the Court’s decision recognizes. Furthermore, we will continue to enforce our immigration laws by focusing on our most important priorities like border security and criminals who endanger our communities, and not, for example, students who earn their education—which is why the Department of Homeland Security announced earlier this month that it will lift the shadow of deportation from young people who were brought to the United States as children through no fault of their own.

 

I will work with anyone in Congress who’s willing to make progress on comprehensive immigration reform that addresses our economic needs and security needs, and upholds our tradition as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. And in the meantime, we will continue to use every federal resource to protect the safety and civil rights of all Americans, and treat all our people with dignity and respect. We can solve these challenges not in spite of our most cherished values—but because of them. What makes us American is not a question of what we look like or what our names are. What makes us American is our shared belief in the enduring promise of this country—and our shared responsibility to leave it more generous and more hopeful than we found it.

In light of this, we can't wait to see what happens if and when Obamacare is overturned on Thursday.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
slaughterer's picture

I have seen a whole lot of twisted politics go by in the last 3 and a half years, but this spin really is not worth defending...

chet's picture

Actually, most of the law was struck down.

Colombian Gringo's picture

If Obama can lie about his birth certificate and get away with it, why not also lie about the supreme court decision? There are plenty of dummies who will believe what enamates from his mouth.

chet's picture

He's not lying.  Most of the law was struck down by the Supreme Court. 

"Enamates" isn't a word.

nmewn's picture

Chet,

See my link below...he's now going to refuse calls from local police in Az who have somone they believe is illegal checked out. As a practical matter...now all of it is struck down as he won't enforce what was upheld by SCOTUS.

He's gone rogue...or semi-dictator, however you want to put it. 

Az will be right back where they were...arresting and detaining illegals forever because the Feds (Obama) are choosing to turn their back on their responsibilities to enforce federal immigration law.

chet's picture

Yes, he is selectively enforcing.  No argument there.

nmewn's picture

You realize thats death to a republic (such as it is) based on laws right?

caconhma's picture

The Nation of imbeciles must be very much proud of its leader Obama.

Just wait for the next President. I think he may demand calling him the Fuhrer (if we are lucky, we will call him just Duce.)

 

 

 

nmewn's picture

He can demand anything he wants, most of us will just laugh at him as usual.

We have a healthy disrespect for snobs of any stripe...its all good. He'll have to be a whole lot more clever than what has come before him.

Of course thats not such a high bar now is it?...lol.

palmereldritch's picture

  Paupers please!

[Translation: Given that you have no paper, one hopes your pockets are full of change]

GCT's picture

Chet agree most was struck down but the part with the most contention with he pres and the hispanic movements was the part they did not take out.  They can spin it anyway they like AZ won this round.

eatthebanksters's picture

The rule of law does not apply under Obama.  Rather than work through the system to change the laws with which he disagrees, he uses decree by dictator to do as he desires, and purely to political ends.  (He could have done all of this his first two years in office with his majority in both house of Congrees but was scared to alienate voters, so he waited untilhe was in trouble...the result is that he is throwing shit against the wall).  Where are the prosecutions for crimes on Wall Street?  Oh that's right, he has gleaned millions in contributions from those law breakers.  Why is Corzine running free?  Oh that's right, he a super bundler and former Democratic US Senator and NJ Governor, not to mention Joe Biden's econmic advisor.  Now we are allowing people who broke the law coming to this country illegally to get away with it while we are intimidating our law enforcement (I feel for the people believe me, but the solution for law abding citizens is nt what Obama has decreed). When society has no laws or when they are applied unevenly people revolt...perhaps this is what Obama wants, perhaps this is His Hope for Change.  He has got to go!

Cloud9.5's picture

The rule of law has not applied since Jackson as evidenced by the Marshal Court and the Trail of Tears.  We delude ourselves gentlemen.  The law only applies to the little people.

maximin thrax's picture

Chet, this is the Lie:"What this decision makes unmistakably clear is that Congress must act on comprehensive immigration reform."

No, what is made unmistakeably clear is that for the states to stop enforcing immigration laws on their own we need the federal government, led by the President, to enforce existing immigration law. We don't need any new laws, just a new President.

What Obama means is that he will continue to thwart federal and state immigration enforcement - not satisfied in simply being derlilict in his duty as chief executive but striving to undermine the laws he's sworn to uphold - until Congress passes a law he likes, which coincidentally will improve his electability among a certain demographic.

Of course, when no such law is legislated he'll simply make one happen by fiat.

chet's picture

I understand your position.

SilverIsKing's picture

"No American should ever live under a cloud of suspicion just because of what they look like."

That's the point, isn't it? Key word is American.

eatthebanksters's picture

I'm white so I must be a racist.  I'm a conservative so I must be evil.  Talk about living under a cloud of suspicion!

Kobe Beef's picture

I don't mind being an "evil racist" if it means people like Obama remain my sworn enemies. Nowadays, I'd consider being an "evil racist" a compliment, considering the types of degenerate parasites likely to throw the accusation at me.

john39's picture

allowing illegal immigration has always been what the banker cabal wanted....  dem or repub, doesn't matter...   same deal in Europe.  its part of destroying existing cultural norms and spreading racial/cultural infighting... ie, divide and conquer.

Yousif's picture

I would argue that Hollywood and the education system have destroyed "existing cultural norms" more than any immigration policy (or the Chinese take-away just round the corner).

I don't ever see anyone complaining about heads of state (the real ones (TPTB)) being able to travel anywhere they want without passports etc.  They don't have any citizenship papers and so on.  No one talks about that.

Instead the modern peasant wants more controls and shackles.  It puzzles me that modern peasants are happy to place more restrictions on their mobility [1].  If the modern peasant is happy to watch their offspring get groped by total strangers in peasant air ports, then the initial statement is not too surprising really.

Some peasants are willing to partake in the "democratic" hoax and fund policies that create the "illegals", yet are not willing to confront the source of the issue but are simply content to moan about cultural norms.

Priorities?

Am I against immigration? No.  Am I against peasants immigrating to live off other peasants' backs? Yes.  Should peasants who can't stand each other be forced to co-exist? No.  Who should deal with these problems?  The community.

If a peasant is not willing to respect the community they are immigrating to then perhaps they should reconsider.

Just for the record:

Do I have a "cultural norm"? No.  I don't have a culture.  "Traditions" and "History" will not taint my judgement.

Do I associate with a peasant tax farm? No.  The tax farm I was delievered in does not represent me.

Do I have a "Nationality"? No, however,  I do (unfortunately) hold a passport which does not represent me or my ideals.

Do I recognize the current "tax farm borders"? No.

Am I a subject? Never.  Irrespective of the beliefs of the 21st Century kleptocracy and their Uruk-hai.

If you got this far, then I hope I'm not alone.

--

[1] Compare with all terrorism legislation, the modern peasant was told the legislation was for keeping them safe and to stop peasants with a darker complexion from harming them.  Yeah.  Right.

PS. I did not downvote your response as I agree with it.  "Multiculturism" is a means of "divide and conquer".

Randall Cabot's picture

 

 

The Culture of Critique

(hereafter, CofC

) was originally published in 1998

by Praeger Publishers, an imprint of Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc. The

thesis of the book is a difficult one indeed—difficult not only because it is

difficult to establish, but also because it challenges many fundamental

assumptions about our contemporary intellectual and political existence.

CofC describes how Jewish intellectuals initiated and advanced a number of

important intellectual and political movements during the 20th century.

that these movements are attempts to alter Western societies in a manner that

I argue

would neutralize or end anti-Semitism and enhance the prospects for Jewish

group continuity either in an overt or in a semi-cryptic manner. Several of these

Jewish movements (e.g., the shift in immigration policy favoring non-European

peoples) have attempted to weaken the power of their perceived competitors—

the European peoples who early in the 20th century had assumed a dominant

position not only in their traditional homelands in Europe, but also in the United

States, Canada, and Australia. At a theoretical level, these movements are viewed

as the outcome of conflicts of interest between Jews and non-Jews in the

construction of culture and in various public policy issues. Ultimately, these

movements are viewed as the expression of a group evolutionary strategy by

Jews in their competition for social, political and cultural dominance with non-

Jews.

Chapter 7. Jewish Involvement In Shaping U.S. Immigration Policy ... 240

Scroll to Chapter 7:http://www.prometheism.net/library/CultureOfCritique.pdf

 

 

my puppy for prez's picture

I would say that the Tavistock Institute is largely responsible for implementing these initiatives and providing "human relations" cover (i.e. Bernays, Lippman, Lewin, etc.)

A very good read about Tavistock is by John Coleman.  It revolutionized my thinking and showed a good deal of the Hidden Hand that is destroying America, if not the whole world.  Rothschilde funded, of course!

vened's picture

Rhodesia, South Africa demise... That's what coming to Whites in the US.

 

---Culture of Critique, Preface to the First Paperback Edition

Kevin MacDonald

<snip>
Although there is much evidence that Europeans presented a spirited defense
of their cultural and ethnic hegemony in the early- to mid-20th century, their rapid
decline raises the question: What cultural or ethnic characteristics of Europeans
made them susceptible to the intellectual and political movements described in
CofC? The discussion in CofC focused mainly on a proposed nexus of
individualism, relative lack of ethnocentrism, and concomitant moral
universalism—all features that are entirely foreign to Judaism. In several places
in all three of my books on Judaism I develop the view that Europeans are
relatively less ethnocentric than other peoples and relatively more prone to
individualism as opposed to the ethnocentric collectivist social structures
historically far more characteristic of other human groups, including—relevant to
this discussion—Jewish groups. I update and extend these ideas here.

The basic idea is that European groups are highly vulnerable to invasion by
strongly collectivist, ethnocentric groups because individualists have less
powerful defenses against such groups.
 The competitive advantage of cohesive,
cooperating groups is obvious and is a theme that recurs throughout my trilogy
on Judaism. This scenario implies that European peoples are more prone to
individualism. Individualist cultures show little emotional attachment to
ingroups. Personal goals are paramount, and socialization emphasizes the
importance of self-reliance, independence, individual responsibility, and “finding
yourself”
 (Triandis 1991, 82). Individualists have more positive attitudes toward
strangers and outgroup members and are more likely to behave in a pro-social,
altruistic manner to strangers. People in individualist cultures are less aware of
ingroup/outgroup boundaries and thus do not have highly negative attitudes
toward outgroup members. They often disagree with ingroup policy, show little
emotional commitment or loyalty to ingroups, and do not have a sense of
common fate with other ingroup members. Opposition to outgroups occurs in
individualist societies, but the opposition is more “rational” in the sense that
there is less of a tendency to suppose that all of the outgroup members are
culpable. Individualists form mild attachments to many groups, while
collectivists have an intense attachment and identification to a few ingroups
(Triandis 1990, 61). Individualists are therefore relatively ill-prepared for
between-group competition so characteristic of the history of Judaism.

Historically Judaism has been far more ethnocentric and collectivist than
typical Western societies. I make this argument in Separation and Its Discontents
(MacDonald 1998a; Ch. 1) and especially in A People That Shall Dwell Alone
(MacDonald 1994; Ch. 8), where I suggest that over the course of their recent
evolution, Europeans were less subjected to between-group natural selection than
Jews and other Middle Eastern populations. This was originally proposed by
Fritz Lenz (1931, 657) who suggested that, because of the harsh environment of
the Ice Age, the Nordic peoples evolved in small groups and have a tendency
toward social isolation rather than cohesive groups.
 This perspective would not
imply that Northern Europeans lack collectivist mechanisms for group
competition, but only that these mechanisms are relatively less elaborated and/or
require a higher level of group conflict to trigger their expression.

This perspective is consistent with ecological theory. Under ecologically
adverse circumstances, adaptations are directed more at coping with the adverse
physical environment than at competing with other groups (Southwood 1977,
1981), and in such an environment, there would be less pressure for selection for
extended kinship networks and highly collectivist groups. Evolutionary
conceptualizations of ethnocentrism emphasize the utility of ethnocentrism in
group competition. Ethnocentrism would thus be of no importance at all in
combating the physical environment, and such an environment would not support
large groups.

European groups are part of what Burton et al. (1996) term the North Eurasian
and Circumpolar culture area.9 This culture area derives from hunter-gatherers
adapted to cold, ecologically adverse climates. In such climates there is pressure
for male provisioning of the family and a tendency toward monogamy because
the ecology did not support either polygyny or large groups for an evolutionarily
significant period. These cultures are characterized by bilateral kinship
relationships which recognize both the male and female lines, suggesting a more
equal contribution for each sex as would be expected under conditions of
monogamy. There is also less emphasis on extended kinship relationships and
marriage tends to be exogamous (i.e., outside the kinship group). As discussed
below, all of these characteristics are opposite those found among Jews.
<snip>

nmewn's picture

"If you got this far, then I hope I'm not alone.
You are not.

Freddie's picture

The vice chairman of Goldman gave a speech to the House of Lords the other day.  He is also on a UN migration panel.  He was pushing more invasion into Europe because it needed to be more multicultural.  They can keep us as serfs if they flood the west with illegals.  This is the plan.

palmereldritch's picture

The 'illegals' are kindling for the globalist arsonists.

The key is not to fuel their fire of destruction, reduction and opportunity.

FEARTHESHARK's picture

You are aware that illegal immigration did not start under President Obama, and in fact is at the lowest levels in decades (due to our horrible economy).  Aside from racism, what the fuck is the potency of this issue at this point in time? 

maximin thrax's picture

I quoted our current president, who stated we need comprehensive immigration reform in lieu of state-by-state action. It's HIS issue. But he can get the states out of the illegal immigrant business if he'd just get the Federal government back into the illegal immigration business. Obama's position is to make damned sure border states like Arizona get overrun by illegals until Congress passes a law he's willing to enforce. That's extortion. What does any of that have to do with racism?

Randall Cabot's picture

Most people are too dumb to process this book-even here on ZH, but if anyone really wants to understand how this once great society has fallen to such lows you should read Culture of Critique: http://www.prometheism.net/library/CultureOfCritique.pdf

 

my puppy for prez's picture

Good one!  I have heard of it before, but haven't read it, so I took a look at the link.  I can definitely handle this, and it looks extremely fascinating.  

Have you read any Nesta Webster?  Her works are quite stout.  I would suggest her book on Revolution, then follow up with "Secret Societies and Subversive Movements".  Quite the researcher and grammatical gymnast she was.  Here Britishness really comes through in her writing style.

IndicaTive's picture

Fuck Obama. Fuck them all. i just spent an hour or so finding--and destroying-- carpenter ant colonies that surround my fucking "american dream" that has lost 20% of its "value" thank you very much. Wells Fargo is basically willing to suck my dick for a refinance because I told them Francis, at my community bank, will come within an eighth point. Fuck Romney, he's the same scummy motherfucker as Obama, but he's got that white corporate raider thing going against him. I say let the hard-working motherfuckers come on in. Give them a card that says "I've been checked out, I'm a temporary worker, I'll do stuff more efficiently and for a better price so put me on the grid pendejo!" And I will tip well.

Fukushima Sam's picture

Actually, they are happy to refinance because then the paperwork problem with your existing mortgage will go away.  Tell your mortgage company to show you their clear claim to title.  If they can't do that then are you sure you are paying the right creditor?

francis_sawyer's picture

I happened to eat lunch the other week at an all you can eat chinese buffet (where only the cash register guy spoke broken english... The place was full of latino construction & landscaping workers...

I just had to laugh at the absurdity (or not) of it all...

To make the story even better, I finish eating, walk out to my car, & there's about a half dozen police patrol vehicles parked in the lot... I guess they were having lunch at the place next door (which wasn't a donut shop)...

Ignatius's picture

Chet:  "'Enamates' isn't a word."

But "enema" is....

Bawneee Fwank's picture

@Colombian Gringo

"Dreams from my real father" by Joel Gilbert

http://obamasrealfather.com/

eatthebanksters's picture

The corpus survived, the mutations were aborted...

Tarheel's picture

only obama would sue the state of arizona for trying to protect their border

Tirpitz's picture

Don't forget: somewhere he got in as well.

narapoiddyslexia's picture

Apparently, the truth hurts? Not surprising. Its hard to be a credible nationalist in a country where you're an immigrant or a recent descendant of immigrants. Recent being less than about five generations. Me, I'm seventh generation English, so all you pollacks and catholics and jews and germans and eyeties can get the hell out.

nmewn's picture

Your English ancestors came here illegally...really?

Thats a helluva swim...you got gills?

narapoiddyslexia's picture

Irony is dead. When did it die? I missed the obit...

Terrorist's picture

We should have shot all you arrogant fuckers 200 years ago.

narapoiddyslexia's picture

There's missing irony, which is one thing, and then there's plain, brutish stupidity.

HoofHearted's picture

Yeah, well you got NOTHING on Elizabeth Warren. 1/128 of her ancestors were here from the beginning. So suck that Paranoid dyslexic. (I'm in much better shape as my Cherokee heritage goes back to a grandfather that I only met once in my life. So I'm 4x more native than Elizabeth Warren. Now if I just would have known what a big deal that is when I applied to college. Shit. Always a day late...except when "my people" came across on the land bridge. Smallpox ridden limey....)

Freddie's picture

Goldman Sachs chairman supports massive illegal immigration and multiculturalism like you do.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18519395

The EU should "do its best to undermine" the "homogeneity" of its member states, the UN's special representative for migration has said.

Peter Sutherland told peers the future prosperity of many EU states depended on them becoming multicultural.

Mr Sutherland, who is non-executive chairman of Goldman Sachs International and a former chairman of oil giant BP, heads the Global Forum on Migration and Development, which brings together representatives of 160 nations to share policy ideas.

narapoiddyslexia's picture

 But wait! I'm against multiculturalism. I want all the catholics to go home. Rome awaits them.