What do you guys think? Now that I've learned about the ignore function, the first person to randomly spin this into an Obama post goes on the list.

I'll tell you though, the one thing that has me happy about the AZ law being turned over is this:

http://media1.break.com/dnet/media/2006/12/dec21gal39.jpg

I'm glad I can still get my burritos.

I think the debate is poisoned by the partisan nature of politics, especially in the current times.

The GOP power base has declared that there's really no room for tolerance on immigration issues. McCain, Bush 43 etc... were all hammered by their own party for taking a pragmatic position.

This has let the nut jobs mingle with the Republicans. I do think many pushing the AZ law were motivated by racism and a sense of stopping a Hispanic invasion.

That's not to say that there are reasonable AZ folks who support the law. Certainly there's a sense of outrage and that the Federal government isn't doing enough to stop the problem, and this is a National issue.

Obama's general policy position doesn't seem to be all that far from Bush. And recent reports seem to indicate he's been even more aggressive in cracking down on illegals.

Under Obama, More Illegal Immigrants Sent Home : NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128826285)

I'd think people should be giving Obama credit for his success during these trying times.

-spence

I'm glad to see that illegals have finally emerged from the shadows and are standing up for their rights to remain here illegally......and that the Federal Government under the direction of,...well.... you know who, will put their boot on the throat of any state that tries to protect itself and it's legal citizens from a foreign invasion of this type.....this is definitely progress and sends a great message to the foreign invaders who ignore our laws....:uhuh:

This was an interesting opinion on the law that I saw earlier today. Can't say I know a whole lot about the details of how the feds are suppose to compensate states:
-Federal government is supposed to compensate AZ for the stress on their infrastructure/free health care and hospital visits/free schooling and other %$%$%$%$ they pay for with all the illegals gobbling up the social services.

-Federal government does not compensate nearly enough to cover even a fraction of the burden these illegals cause the state.

-State taxpayers are the ones who foot the bill. I'm sorry but an illegal getting paid under the table does not contribute a single dime to the state coffers (In case some of you failed high school economics)

So Arizona does the only thing they can which is pass their own law and take matters into their own hands. It has nothing to do with racism, not a single damn thing. The states out here on the west coast are already hurting thanks to the housing downturn and subsequent recession due to rampant speculation at all levels of our financial world and that's all AZ needs is to go completely bankrupt and down the %$%$%$%$ter even more due to a bunch of freeloaders.

Go watch the south park episode that started the famous quote "They took our jobs!" "Der derker derrrr!" and realize this has absolutely zero to do with racial bias or latinos and moreso with freeloading social services at the expense of the state.

It seems like every state has similar issues with the freebies people take advantage of, unlike us taxpayers.

I forgot to declare all my earnings on my tax report, Fine or jail

I don't have health insurance, fine or lien on my property , wages

etc....

Obama's general policy position doesn't seem to be all that far from Bush. And recent reports seem to indicate he's been even more aggressive in cracking down on illegals.

Under Obama, More Illegal Immigrants Sent Home : NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128826285)

I'd think people should be giving Obama credit for his success during these trying times.

-spence

It appears that you have qualified for JohnnyD's ignore list.

It appears that you have qualified for JohnnyD's ignore list.
Not at all. Citing relevant facts isn't random in the least...

-spence

I'd think people should be giving Obama credit for his success during these trying times.

-spence

This is a relevant fact? :confused:

trying times? ...I thought this was "Recovery Summer"

To get back to JohnnyD's Q, Mark Levin argues that Judge Bolton reached a pre-determined decision. I know, I know, Levin is biased. Aren't we all?

He says that the Judge stated the correct legal standard, then ignored it and applied the test in a way completely divorced from the facts in the case.

First, she stated correctly that a facial challenge seeking a preliminary injunction requires the plaintiff (Federal Gov.) to demonstrate that the Arizona law can never be applied in a constitutional fashion. The test cannot be met with hypothetical argument--yet that is exactly what she relied on in her ruling, that the AZ law will impose an impermissible burden on law enforcement. She does not provide any empirical basis to support her conclusion--only pure supposition.

She cites a Supreme Court case "U.S. vs Salerno" where she notes: a facial challenge must fail where a statute has a plainly legitimate sweep." And in deciding a facial challenge, courts "must be careful not to go beyond the statute's facial requirements and speculate about 'hypothetical' or imagionary cases." Then she doesn't even attempt to analyze the provisions she overturns except for one she upheld. She doesn't distinguish the facial challenge from an as-applied challenge--at one point engaging in the hypothetical example of a potential unfair burden on a legal alien failing to have a dog on a leash fearing that he might be detained and subject to an impermissible burden for not carrying his papers. But the test is that it actually has to happen, not that it might happen. She also worries that increasing the time one is detained while his status is being checked might be unconstitutional--again, pure speculation, and contrary to what the First Circuit Court of Appeals already decided--such delay is permissible when there is reasonable suspicion. She largely ignores the Arizona Statute's saying that law enforcement officers can only confirm legal status where there is reaonable suspicion that the person is here illegally.

She violates another Supreme Court decision in "Hines vs. Davidowitz" where a Pennsylvania law was struck down because it put in place its own immigration law. The Hines Court concluded that a State law is invalid when it is an "obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress." The AZ statute does not create an entire new law, but merely complements the Federal statutes. If anything, Hines supports AZ.

Bolton does not provide substantive analysis of the high standards required for a successful facial challenge. She thinks certain events or difficulties will occur and substitutes those thoughts for empirical evidence. AZ doesn't create any new or added Federal responsibilities. It doesn't establish any new or inconsistent obligations on legal or illegal aliens, and doesn't create any new or extra forms, procedures, or other obligations for aliens.

Respecting preemption, the substantive core of the Federal Government's case, Bolton shows no evidence to conclude that AZ is likely to fail on inquiring into the legal status, or that it will impermissibly interfere with the Federal Government's allocation of resources. AZ isn't requiring the Fed. Gov. to do anything. The Federal Government can choose not to take Arizona's calls. Nor does AZ preempt Federal law. It does not create a new regime. Actually, longstanding Federal Law practice encourages states to assist in enforcing Federal immigration law.

if you had a magic wand ...........

and with one sweep suddenly deported every single illegal alien
never to return.............

the economy would crash so hard it could never recover.

That's not to say that there are reasonable AZ folks who support the law.

-spence

come out from under your rock, the law is supported by the majority of Americans!

if you had a magic wand ...........

and with one sweep suddenly deported every single illegal alien
never to return.............

the economy would crash so hard it could never recover.

Maybe the Federal Governmeny might crash, since many of their programs are aimed at giving aid and support to those that can't/won't earn it for themselves and to support those that are not paying into the same system as the resident taxpaying population.

Yes it would affect the economy, but if the corresponding taxes we pay were lowered because we did not have to pay for all of the welfare programs geared toward illegal immigrants we might break even!

Of course, like the AZ judge, I don't have imperical evidence, just hypothetical mumbo-jumbo.:wall:

if you had a magic wand ...........

and with one sweep suddenly deported every single illegal alien
never to return.............

the economy would crash so hard it could never recover.

let's give it a shot and see what happens :uhuh: the economic forcast is pretty bleak, we could just pull an Obama if it fails and claim that things would have "been even worse" if we'd not done it :rotf2:

if you had a magic wand ...........

and with one sweep suddenly deported every single illegal alien
never to return.............

the economy would crash so hard it could never recover.

let's give it a shot and see what happens :uhuh: the economic forcast is pretty bleak, we could just pull an Obama if it fails and claim that things would have "been even worse" if we'd not done it :rotf2:

Gotta agree with scottw. With the amount of money spent for social services, increased law enforcement, insurance costs due to crime and free hospital care, it'd be tough to convince me that we wouldn't see a net-benefit.

Here's an old study:
The Center for Immigration Studies reported in 2004: "Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household."[

And that's just the cost to the federal government. Also, the illegal problem has increased significantly since 2002.

Here are some numbers for the County of Los Angeles:
Michael D. Antonovich, Los Angeles County Supervisor for the 5th District, announced in August 2009: "Figures from the Department of Public Social Services show that children of illegal aliens in Los Angeles County collected nearly $22 million in welfare and over $26 million in food stamps in June 2009. Projected over a 12 month period, this would exceed $575 million dollars. Annually the cost of illegal immigration to Los Angeles County taxpayers exceeds $1 billion dollars, which includes $350 million for public safety, $400 million for healthcare, and $500 million in welfare and food stamps allocations. Twenty-four percent of the County’s total allotment of welfare and food stamp benefits goes directly to the children of illegal aliens born in the United States."

How about:
Harvard's George Borjas says the average American's wealth is increased by less than 1 percent because of illegal immigration.[
I'd gladly give up 1% of my wealth to be rid of the problems that come with illegal immigration.

Then there's the cost to states to give these people who have no respect for our laws an education:
Using the U.S. INS statistics on how many illegal immigrants are residing in each state and the U.S. Dept of Education's current expenditure per pupil by state, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, known for its anti-illegal alien stance, has estimated cost of educating illegal alien students was as follows:[27]
State Illegal Alien Students
California $3,220,200,000
Texas $1,645,400,000
New York $1,306,300,000
Illinois $834,000,000
New Jersey $620,200,000
For all 50 states $11,919,900,000

...

During April 2006, Standard & Poor's analysts wrote: "Local school districts are estimated to educate 1.8 million undocumented children. At an average annual cost of $7,500 (averages vary by jurisdiction) per student, the cost of providing education to these children is about $11.2 billion."[

But, I'm just a crazy moonbat liberal...:wall::wall:

it's the labor end of it..... i'm referring to

you'd better learn to grow and pick your own food....

because the pickers would all be gone

and most white Americans (or non latino's)
wouldn't fill their shoes....

it's the labor end of it..... i'm referring to

you'd better learn to grow and pick your own food....

because the pickers would all be gone

and most white Americans (or non latino's)
wouldn't fill their shoes....

But that would be an opportunity for another government bailout--to save the growing and picking industry. Another stimulus package, perhaps, of about $800 billion, to allow the growing and picking industry to raise their wages and hire white Americans. An adequate amount of that money could be used to buy, say, 60% of the stock in the growing and picking industry as a government investment. This would ensure that the growing and picking industry would continue to adhere to the higher wages necessary to employ white Americans and would also give government the power to demand the correct quality of produce and working conditions. Government owning, er, having the major share of the industry could favor it over cheaper imports from third world countries, creating a sort of People's monopoly on something so essential as food--similar to the coming Health Care. The benevolent government will ensure that We the People have the best food, the best health, the best cars, and the best of whatever else may fail and needs to be restored with stimulus. And what remains of the $800 billion could be set aside for future election, er, investment and recovery purposes. The crashed economy resulting from deportation of illegals would be a smashing opportunity not to waste a crisis.

it's the labor end of it..... i'm referring to

you'd better learn to grow and pick your own food....

because the pickers would all be gone

and most white Americans (or non latino's)
wouldn't fill their shoes....

I buy as much of my produce locally as I can. It tastes better, is better for you and doesn't have all the trash sprayed on it like industrial vegetables. A little bit of research goes a long way in seeing what companies pay a fair (meaning legal) wage.

I'd much rather pay more for my food and allow governments to subsidize farmers in this country to pay legal Americans a fair wage, than to have those same farmers pay illegals to pick vegetables below minimum wage and then send that money back to their home country. Hell, if they want to go through the appropriate avenues to become a legal citizen and work in the fields, I fully support that.

Also, one possible resolution to a potential lack of willing field works are convicts. Make arrangements with farmers for non-violent, well-behaved prisoners to work on the farms and put those people to constructive use- states already use prisoners to clean trash from the highways.

With millions of unemployed legal American citizens, the excuse of "they work the jobs that Americans don't want" to validate reasons for allowing border-hoppers to stay here is shameful.

But that would be an opportunity for another government bailout--to save the growing and picking industry. Another stimulus package, perhaps, of about $800 billion, to allow the growing and picking industry to raise their wages and hire white Americans. An adequate amount of that money could be used to buy, say, 60% of the stock in the growing and picking industry as a government investment. And the rest could be set aside for future election, er, investment and recovery purposes. The crashed economy resulting from deportation of illegals would be a smashing opportunity not to waste a crisis.
:yawn:Completely off topic and nonsense.

Seriously, on the other hand, "the economy" was strong before the influx of millions of illegals and would be strong if they left--if it is allowed to function as a free market. Free market innovations respond to economic crises more productively, and more durably, than government intervention. An economy that evolves freely from the bottom up, as a result of competition between the numerous entrepeneurs is a thriving, growing, wealthy economy, as opposed to top-down, planned economies concocted by a small cadre of like minded rulers. Mao's "let a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend" was a wonderful idea, and a bottom-up way to evolve his society. Unfortunately, he promptly executed any flower or thinker that competed with his one, top-down way.

:yawn:Completely off topic and nonsense.

Off topic??? Which topic--the ignore function--debate poisoned by partisan politics--the Arizona law--Feds compensating States--similar issues with freebies--people should be giving Obama credit--trying times--magic wand--crashed economy--etc.? My nonsense addressed some of those, in an intentionally nonnsensical way, tying in the overall ongoing political nonsense of which the Federal District court's decision to stay the AZ law is nonsensical part of.

Also, I apologize for editing the post that you quote at the same time that you were responding to it. So your response does not have my full post, which is more nonsense, so it doesn't matter.

would be a smashing opportunity not to waste a crisis.
~
i see the opportunity of Katrina's damage and of this gulf oil spill
as two "smashing opportunities" having gone to waste thus far.

Seems to me that the response to foreign disasters always takes precedence and even gets a more rapid response....from the feds.

the whole cutting of straight channels in the Marshland (which has resulted in making it disappear) and the Levies built by the army corps of engineers as the biggest blunders
in modern history.

Another stimulus package, perhaps, of about $800 billion, to allow the growing and picking industry to raise their wages and hire white Americans.
Why should they raise their wages?

Clearly the free market as found level in the form of hard working laborers, reasonable margins and a product that's affordable for consumers.

-spence

With millions of unemployed legal American citizens, the excuse of "they work the jobs that Americans don't want" to validate reasons for allowing border-hoppers to stay here is shameful.




You are right on, JD. Seems as if it's "below" a lot of people to get their
hands dirty.

Does anyone know out of the 10-11million illegals here actually work on farms or
for commercial fruit and vegetable growers???

Being it is seasonal work, are they collecting unemployment off season?

Gotta agree with scottw. With the amount of money spent for social services, increased law enforcement, insurance costs due to crime and free hospital care, it'd be tough to convince me that we wouldn't see a net-benefit.

Here's an old study:

And that's just the cost to the federal government. Also, the illegal problem has increased significantly since 2002.

Here are some numbers for the County of Los Angeles:

How about:

I'd gladly give up 1% of my wealth to be rid of the problems that come with illegal immigration.

Then there's the cost to states to give these people who have no respect for our laws an education:

But, I'm just a crazy moonbat liberal...:wall::wall:

+1 :btu: (not the moonbat liberal part)

I think the debate is poisoned by the partisan nature of politics, especially in the current times.

The GOP power base has declared that there's really no room for tolerance on immigration issues. McCain, Bush 43 etc... were all hammered by their own party for taking a pragmatic position.

This has let the nut jobs mingle with the Republicans. I do think many pushing the AZ law were motivated by racism and a sense of stopping a Hispanic invasion.

That's not to say that there are reasonable AZ folks who support the law. Certainly there's a sense of outrage and that the Federal government isn't doing enough to stop the problem, and this is a National issue.

Obama's general policy position doesn't seem to be all that far from Bush. And recent reports seem to indicate he's been even more aggressive in cracking down on illegals.

Under Obama, More Illegal Immigrants Sent Home : NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128826285)

I'd think people should be giving Obama credit for his success during these trying times.

-spence

Spencism Alert, some commonality, some partisanism, some sprinkling of whackjobs associating with other party, followed by some redirection. Love ya kid, but sometimes you really make me chuckle :rotf2:

Support for AZ law:

May 2010 WSJ/MNC: First Read - Poll: Nearly two-thirds back AZ law (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/05/12/4433376-poll-nearly-two-thirds-back-az-law)
From NBC's Mark Murray

Nearly two-thirds back AZ law.

Here's another set of numbers from the new NBC/WSJ poll we're teasing:

Nearly two-thirds of Americans back Arizona's new anti-illegal immigration law, which makes it a state crime for a person to be in the country illegally. The law also requires local and state law enforcement officials to question people about their immigration status if they suspect they're in the country illegally.

Sixty-four percent favor this law, while 34 percent oppose it. But those numbers are essentially reversed among Latinos -- with 70 percent of them opposing the law, and only 27 percent supporting it.

Even though almost two-thirds of the public supports Arizona's law, nearly an identical number (66 percent) believe it will lead to the discrimination of Latino immigrants who reside in the U.S. legally. Gallup April 29: More Americans Favor Than Oppose Arizona Immigration Law (http://www.gallup.com/poll/127598/Americans-Favor-Oppose-Arizona-Immigration-Law.aspx)

PRINCETON, NJ -- More than three-quarters of Americans have heard about the state of Arizona's new immigration law, and of these, 51% say they favor it and 39% oppose it. I'd put more numbers in but they do images of the poll -v- text ;) )

CNN - couple days ago: (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/07/27/poll.immigration.discrimination/index.html)

CNN poll: Most back Arizona law but cite concerns about effects

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

* Fifty-five percent of those polled say they favor Arizona's immigration law
* Fifty percent say it will not reduce illegal immigration
* Arizona law is set to go into effect Thursday
* Critics say law will lead to racial profiling; supporters say its aim is to enforce federal law

Washington (CNN) -- Most Americans support Arizona's new law on illegal immigration, but according to a national poll, a majority think the controversial measure will increase discrimination against Hispanics while not necessarily making a dent in the problem.

A new CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey also indicates that Hispanic and whites don't see eye to eye over the law.Numbers roughly in line with that biased Rasmussen (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/immigration/56_oppose_justice_department_challenge_of_arizona_ law_61_favor_similar_law_in_their_state):

Opposed to the DOJ challenging the AZ law:

56% Oppose Justice Department Challenge of Arizona Law; 61% Favor Similar Law In Their State
Thursday, July 08, 2010

Voters by a two-to-one margin oppose the U.S. Justice Department’s decision to challenge the legality of Arizona’s new immigration law in federal court. Sixty-one percent (61%), in fact, favor passage of a law like Arizona’s in their own state, up six points from two months ago.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 28% of voters agree that the Justice Department should challenge the state law. Fifty-six percent (56%) disagree and another 16% are not sure.

These findings are unchanged from late May when the possibility of such a challenge first surfaced in news reports.

Why should they raise their wages?

Clearly the free market as found level in the form of hard working laborers, reasonable margins and a product that's affordable for consumers.

-spence

you guys can throw around partisanship or run the numbers all ya want... but i look at their E-coli product their sellin me that's essentially a sponge that has soaked up a bunch of commercial sprays of all kinds or absorbed them in the roots and say No freakin way! DUDEs... because even at the cheap labor rates they have, they still have to throw quality out the window (meaning pesticide free)to produce enough volume to make a buck with all the after refrigeration from California, Arizona (where- ever) to here...
~
they have these special squirting wands as they drive down the rows that spray the undersides.........
of the plants to outwit the mighty bugs and create a good looking:love:............ but highly toxic product.:yak5:

affordable :rotf3:

Why should they raise their wages?

Clearly the free market as found level in the form of hard working laborers, reasonable margins and a product that's affordable for consumers.

-spence

Yes, the free market "found" a level that was provided by the Federal Government allowing that level to exist. If the Federal Government tended to the duties it was originally intended to perform instead of gobbling up powers that were supposed to belong to others, it would have the time to solve the massive illegal alien population that the free market "finds" is willing to work harder and for less than "white folks" and "non-latinos". And States, such as AZ, from whom the Federal Government has stolen so much, wouldn't have to attempt to solve a legitimate Federal Government function. And yet, the Federal Government, having already usurped so much State, local, and individual power, sues AZ to stop it from helping the over-bloated Federales do what they are supposed to do. Our free market is for our free and individual citizens to enjoy, to populate, and to create. It is for our citizens to decide for whom they will work and for how much. And if the market is overstocked with citizens seeking work, the wages will, competitively go down. If less seek the work than is needed, the wages will go up. And a whole series of cascading economic results ensues. Illegal aliens should not be allowed to skew the market against the citizens.

They are here illegally, admit it sign up or be taken to the exit.

Friend's SIL owes back taxes on wages earned by illegally who was using her SSN. Tried to file a work comp found out someone already had one in her name.

IRS garnered her wages for SS tax and federal, criminal court case found against her by judge, appealing to higher court would take more money than what is needed to be paid.

Take them all either make them legal or send them away,

you guys can throw around partisanship or run the numbers all ya want... but i look at their E-coli product their sellin me that's essentially a sponge that has soaked up a bunch of commercial sprays of all kinds or absorbed them in the roots and say No freakin way! DUDEs... because even at the cheap labor rates they have, they still have to throw quality out the window (meaning pesticide free)to produce enough volume to make a buck with all the after refrigeration from California, Arizona (where- ever) to here...
~
they have these special squirting wands as they drive down the rows that spray the undersides.........
of the plants to outwit the mighty bugs and create a good looking:love:............ but highly toxic product.:yak5:

affordable :rotf3:

Don't buy them then. Justifying the illegal's presence here by saying that food prices will go up is insane.

You don't want chemicals, pesticides and genetically modified fruits and veggies, then by Certified Organic and **Do the Research**. Support your local farmers. Buy what's in season. Or join a farmers co-op. Keep the money locally and add jobs to our local economy.

Supermarkets can take their bitter, hard, light pink and barely ripened tomatoes and shove em. There's nothing like a locally grown, vine ripened tomato.

According to USA Today, May 5 2010, emplyoyed Illegal imigrants work in the following fields.

4% Farming
21% Service Industry
19% Production
12% Sales
15% Installation and Repairs
10% Management
8% Transportation

So if these numbers are accurate, only 4% of Illegal immigrant workers are working in Farrning lowering the cost of food labor while all the other higher paying fields they work in are taking the jobs from the Legal immigrants and native born Americans.

Spencism Alert, some commonality, some partisanism, some sprinkling of whackjobs associating with other party, followed by some redirection. Love ya kid, but sometimes you really make me chuckle :rotf2:

I don't buy the polls, or at least don't think the really reinforce the point.

The polls do a poor job of breaking out how much people really understand about the bill or the issue. While many say they support the bill, they also say they believe it will lead to increased discrimination of legal aliens and citizens.

Why would people support a bill they think will lead to more discrimination?

Because the polls are probably more reflective of the fact that people just want the government to do more, rather than specific endorsement for the more controversial elements of the AZ legislation.

-spence

If we wiped out illegal immigration with a magic wand, the interior of my house would instantly turn to squalor and I'd magically appear at Wal-Mart with a cart full of Top Job and Bounty Paper Towels.

I don't buy the polls, or at least don't think the really reinforce the point.

The polls do a poor job of breaking out how much people really understand about the bill or the issue. While many say they support the bill, they also say they believe it will lead to increased discrimination of legal aliens and citizens.

Why would people support a bill they think will lead to more discrimination?

Because the polls are probably more reflective of the fact that people just want the government to do more, rather than specific endorsement for the more controversial elements of the AZ legislation.

-spence

this is Patrick Kennedy logic :rotf2:

LOL, it's amazing how we all agree if a poll is going our way, but if
it doesn't we say it's flawed.
Ya have to look at a group of polls and look at the trend to see
if they are pointing in one direction or the other.

Poland is a long way to go for an opinion :hs:

The polls do a poor job of breaking out how much people really understand about the bill or the issue. While many say they support the bill, they also say they believe it will lead to increased discrimination of legal aliens and citizens.

Why would people support a bill they think will lead to more discrimination?
-spence

That the bill might lead to discrimination, or that people think it will, is not the test. As judge Bolton said, the Federal Government must demonstrate that the AZ law can never be applied in a constitutional fashion. The test cannot be met with hypothetical argument. (Of course, she contradicted her own directions and ruled on hypotheticals.) The fact is, almost any bill, or law can, and has led to accusations of discrimination. If the test for a law to exist is that it cannot potentially lead to "discrimination", a whole lot of ordinances have to be revoked.

The potential for a law to lead to discrimination does not necessarily lay in the law, but in its application by individual enforcers. The fault is usually not in the law, but in racially biased individuals. Rather than blaming and disavowing valuable law, when it is applied in a discriminatory fashion, the individual who misuses the law should be prosecuted--don't blame the law.

So it is not necessarily a contradiction if supporters of the AZ law think it might lead to discrimination but still support it.

I don't buy the polls, or at least don't think the really reinforce the point.

The polls do a poor job of breaking out how much people really understand about the bill or the issue. While many say they support the bill, they also say they believe it will lead to increased discrimination of legal aliens and citizens.
-spence

Spence even CNN talking heads say 55 % of americans agree with the AZ law.

All Judge Bolton did was point out to Arizona lawmakers the three sections of the law that needs fine-tuning and the law would likely be enforceable. Ah, good old reasonable suspicion........................oops!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! When an officer of the law has reason to believe that a crime is about to be committed or has been committed.

Hey, Spence, let me clear something out for you.

Yes, many Americans feel that there may be some potential increased discrimination but the majority of Americans recognize a few simple, easy to factor points:

1) If I am pulled over for potential illegal or suspicious activity I need to produce my identification - AND I WAS BORN here. Someone not here legally should not have a higher level of protection than those here legally.

2) People that are not citizens should go though proper LEGAL channels to become citizens. Ignoring the law when convenient is breaking the law.

3) There are more problems created by illegal citizens than legal citizens, be it law enforcement, costs and entitlements, taxes, etc.

Would love to type out more but going to bed.

Please give me three reasons why we are better off as we are now with porous borders?

AMEN ,JR.
As Americans we should be Proud to show we are citizens of the United States especially since our ancestors waited their turn to come here legally, studied and became citizens,adopted the US to be their home and called themselves Americans and worked to make a better life for their families. No handouts.

Showing ID is no different then showing your voting registration card in order to have the ,privlidge to vote.

Showing ID is no different then showing your voting registration card in order to have the ,privlidge to vote.

funny that many of the same folks/groups that oppose the Arizona law also oppose any requirement to show an ID to vote....probably just a coincidence :uhuh:

1) If I am pulled over for potential illegal or suspicious activity I need to produce my identification - AND I WAS BORN here. Someone not here legally should not have a higher level of protection than those here legally.

You have to show identification, not prove you're a citizen or legal alien. I don't see any difference in protection. What's at issue is jurisdiction and the presumption of guilt.

2) People that are not citizens should go though proper LEGAL channels to become citizens. Ignoring the law when convenient is breaking the law.

Any why we already have Federal laws to deal with this issue.

3) There are more problems created by illegal citizens than legal citizens, be it law enforcement, costs and entitlements, taxes, etc.

That's not really the issue, it's about a State potentially usurping Federal law and the discrimination of legal citizens and legal aliens in doing so.

Please give me three reasons why we are better off as we are now with porous borders?

Again, that's not the point. The legal argument against the AZ law isn't that illegals are good for the country, I'd think only a very small minority would voice this opinion.

Although, you do seem to be proving the point I was trying to make.

That National support is based more on a desire for the Feds to do more rather than endorsement for the controversial elements of the bill.

-spence

That the bill might lead to discrimination, or that people think it will, is not the test. As judge Bolton said, the Federal Government must demonstrate that the AZ law can never be applied in a constitutional fashion. The test cannot be met with hypothetical argument. (Of course, she contradicted her own directions and ruled on hypotheticals.) The fact is, almost any bill, or law can, and has led to accusations of discrimination. If the test for a law to exist is that it cannot potentially lead to "discrimination", a whole lot of ordinances have to be revoked.

The potential for a law to lead to discrimination does not necessarily lay in the law, but in its application by individual enforcers. The fault is usually not in the law, but in racially biased individuals. Rather than blaming and disavowing valuable law, when it is applied in a discriminatory fashion, the individual who misuses the law should be prosecuted--don't blame the law.

So it is not necessarily a contradiction if supporters of the AZ law think it might lead to discrimination but still support it.
In this case you have a target demographic that's pretty well defined and a law with the potential to impact the daily life of a very large number of legal citizens and non-citizens who appear to fit the profile.

I'd think the risk factor here is extremely high and more than a simple perhaps.

-spence

That National support is based more on a desire for the Feds to do more rather than endorsement for the controversial elements of the bill.

-spence

National support is based on a desire and the overwhelming approval of a State taking action when the Feds refuse to.....the "controversial elements" that you describe are only controversial in the minds of illegals and their enablers...:uhuh:

You have to show identification, not prove you're a citizen or legal alien. I don't see any difference in protection. What's at issue is jurisdiction and the presumption of guilt. And we need to legally provide proper documentation (Birt certs, Passports, SS card, various ID cards,in order to get the proper identification that 97% of us will show to a law enforcement officer should we run a foul of the law.

We also need to use said identification when applying tax forms when taking a new job.

Any why we already have Federal laws to deal with this issue.

The laws that are conspicuously not being followed / enforced?

That's not really the issue, it's about a State potentially usurping Federal law and the discrimination of legal citizens and legal aliens in doing so.

And the proponents of this bill would argue that the lack of the Federal guvmint's involvement / success in enforcing existing laws.


Again, that's not the point. The legal argument against the AZ law isn't that illegals are good for the country, I'd think only a very small minority would voice this opinion.

Although, you do seem to be proving the point I was trying to make.

That National support is based more on a desire for the Feds to do more rather than endorsement for the controversial elements of the bill.

-spence

:rotf2: - I apologize, sometimes I have this habit of looking at this issue at the National as well as state aspect. I understand others ignore at the national level as well as the state level.

I do not see a problem with the state law that in its essence asks people to obey the law, and follow the law, or there will be the potential for consequences. As long as reasonable assurances for the respect for human rights can be maintained. This bill tries to put more teeth into fighting illegal immigration, not legal immigration.

I want more legal immigrants to come to this country and become Americans. Legal, pulling the same oar to help our kids get smarter, more entrepreneurial spirit, and to grow our nation, because that make sense and helps us to grow. Otherwise we become stagnant.

You have to show identification, not prove you're a citizen or legal alien. I don't see any difference in protection. What's at issue is jurisdiction and the presumption of guilt.

Jurisdiction is not an issue. Federal jurisdiction is not infringed. AZ law assists, does not usurp, the Federal Government in finding illegals. Actual guilt, not presumed guilt, is the target.

Any why we already have Federal laws to deal with this issue.

As JR says, the laws are not being properly enforced. Law without enforcement is law that does not exist. Normally, the Federal Government appreciates and encourages local assistance. It is, after all, so "overburdened." The AZ law actually makes the Federal law more meaningful by assisting in its enforcement.

That's not really the issue, it's about a State potentially usurping Federal law and the discrimination of legal citizens and legal aliens in doing so.

There is no possibility that the AZ law can "usurp" Federal law. Any state law that did so (not possible) would be struck down. The AZ law "usurps" no Federal law, no Federal power, no Federal action. It "potentially" assists the Federal Government. There is no special targeting of legal citizens or legal aliens. They are all subject to the same law enforcement. Any "potential" discrimination that occurs from improper enforcement is subject to reverse suits and monetary compensation.

That National support is based more on a desire for the Feds to do more rather than endorsement for the controversial elements of the bill.-spence

It's based on the Federal Government doing what it is supposed to do, rather than the Government doing a piss poor, less than half-hearted, job, and then rejecting help to do what it seems incapable of doing. Which controversial elements? What the Federal Government is doing and not doing, is extremely controversial.

In this case you have a target demographic that's pretty well defined

Yes. The target demographic is people who are here illegally.

and a law with the potential to impact the daily life of a very large number of legal citizens

Yes. It has the potential to improve the economic and safety issues of legal citizens.

and non-citizens who appear to fit the profile.

Only those who are here illegally. Some "potential" for discrimination, but that would also be illegal and "potential" cannot be a test for the law's validity.

I'd think the risk factor here is extremely high and more than a simple perhaps. -spence

Absolutely. There is an extremely high risk to illegal aliens.

They are here illegally, admit it sign up or be taken to the exit. Yep

Friend's SIL owes back taxes on wages earned by illegally who was using her SSN. Tried to file a work comp found out someone already had one in her name.That is friggin horrible

IRS garnered her wages for SS tax and federal, criminal court case found against her by judge, appealing to higher court would take more money than what is needed to be paid.unfreakin real

Take them all either make them legal or send them away,

What safegaurds do the SS administration have to keep this from happening?:smash::fury::wall:

If they can't afford a lawyer, tell them to bring up to the presses attention and get on Good Morning America or something and inform the country to wake the f$5# up!
:fury::smash::smash:

Just sneak in here illegally and Pregnant
and have an American Baby. :fury:

sure we'll Pay for everything .... no problem
after all it's an American :huh:

What safegaurds do the SS administration have to keep this from happening?:smash::fury::wall:

If they can't afford a lawyer, tell them to bring up to the presses attention and get on Good Morning America or something and inform the country to wake the f$5# up!
:fury::smash::smash:

They tried to do all sorts of stuff. but she's still paying

Jurisdiction is not an issue. Federal jurisdiction is not infringed. AZ law assists, does not usurp, the Federal Government in finding illegals. Actual guilt, not presumed guilt, is the target.

Not according to the Federal judge, who believe the AZ law interferes with the Feds ability to set and enforce a consistent policy.

That you disagree with that issue doesn't make it wrong, it's just an interpretation. I'm sure the higher courts will be chiming in soon.

As JR says, the laws are not being properly enforced. Law without enforcement is law that does not exist. Normally, the Federal Government appreciates and encourages local assistance. It is, after all, so "overburdened." The AZ law actually makes the Federal law more meaningful by assisting in its enforcement.

I would think a Conservative would argue that the solution is better Federal enforcement, rather than additional legislation that will increase the size of government through State mandates which also may burden local law enforcement.


There is no possibility that the AZ law can "usurp" Federal law. Any state law that did so (not possible) would be struck down. The AZ law "usurps" no Federal law, no Federal power, no Federal action. It "potentially" assists the Federal Government. There is no special targeting of legal citizens or legal aliens. They are all subject to the same law enforcement. Any "potential" discrimination that occurs from improper enforcement is subject to reverse suits and monetary compensation.
Interfering with Federal priorities and could be construed as the same thing. If the Feds want to focus on drugs, and the local Sheriff is rounding up a hundred day workers to hand over to ICE, you might just have a resource issue.

It's based on the Federal Government doing what it is supposed to do, rather than the Government doing a piss poor, less than half-hearted, job, and then rejecting help to do what it seems incapable of doing. Which controversial elements? What the Federal Government is doing and not doing, is extremely controversial.

So the answer again is to focus on more stringent Federal enforcement which Obama appears to be doing.

-spence

So the answer again is to focus on more stringent Federal enforcement which Obama appears to be doing.

-spence

:rotf2::rotf2::rotf2:

you are too funny....:rotf2::rotf2::rotf2:

:rotf2::rotf2::rotf2:

you are too funny....:rotf2::rotf2::rotf2:

I'd have to note, you and my six year old have something in common. Neither of you really cares about the posts, but both love the emoticons :devil2: :hihi:

-spence

I'd have to note, you and my six year old have something in common. Neither of you really cares about the posts, but both love the emoticons :devil2: :hihi:

-spence

there you go again...Spence..your posts have been so chock full of detached from reality BS lately...it's hard to do anything but laugh...but I'm not the only one pointing this out...:uhuh::rotf2::rotf2:

there you go again...Spence..your posts have been so chock full of detached from reality BS lately...it's hard to do anything but laugh...but I'm not the only one pointing this out...:uhuh::rotf2::rotf2:
I guess it is easier than thinking :lama:

-spence

I guess it is easier than thinking :lama:

-spence

when you continually stand common sense on it's head in the form of regurgitated progressive talking points...there's not a whole lot of thinking required on either of our parts...whether in your assertions or in my reponses...you spew...I laugh:rotf2:....you remind me of an article that I read recently about Paul Krugman and his apparent crack up to the point that colleagues and his ombudsman have had to back away pointing out the fact that he's so wed to Keynesian theory and progressive politics that he can't mutter a competent thought or accept reality....

For example, Robert Barro, the distinguished Harvard economist, noted that Krugman "just says whatever is convenient for his political argument. He doesn't behave like an economist." The New York Times ombudsman Daniel Okrent observed that Paul Krugman has "the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults." James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal, after listing the falsities in Krugman's latest piece on climate last week, hazarded that perhaps "Krugman makes himself ridiculous merely to make our job easy."


see...we could substitute Spence for Krugman...:uhuh: most experts would agree :uhuh:

Who?

-spence

WHY? is it acceptable to say BALLS in Spanish on national radio/Tv
as Sarah Palin has just done in reference to OBAMA not having any

she could have said he ............ doesn't own a pair

his boys are hiding behind the couch or something similar

there is such a disparity of wanting non english speaking persons
within America to learn English and to speak it fluently
not to have street signs in spanish ........yada, yada, yada...(Sinfeld)

but ..... when people like politicians wanna say BALLS
or anything else off color........
they just substitute Cahones or another spanish word..?

or BIG brass .....well you know what i mean...

i don't get this double standard :doh:

it's a mystery, i'm telling ya

Who?

-spence

Spence Krugman

Nobel Prize Winner....for all that's worth...:rotf2:

[QUOTE=Raven;785960]WHY? is it acceptable to say BALLS in Spanish on national radio/Tv
as Sarah Palin has just done in reference to OBAMA not having any

it's sexy when she talks that way :uhuh: and most experts agree with her :rotf2:

Not according to the Federal judge, who believe the AZ law interferes with the Feds ability to set and enforce a consistent policy.

That you disagree with that issue doesn't make it wrong, it's just an interpretation. I'm sure the higher courts will be chiming in soon.

This is just a forum discussion on JohnnyD's Q. Discussion of what the judge decided should include her opinions and their merit. I am not disagreeing with an issue, I am commenting on the propriety of her statements and the egregious disagreements she has with her own instructions.

The Executive Branch primarily asserts that provisions in the AZ ammendments to its already existing law are preempted by Federal law.

The judge states that federal preemption can be either express or implied.

And that there are two types of implied:

FIELD PREEMPTION--where the depth and breadth of a congressional scheme occupies the legislative field. She briefly alludes to the Congress as being the only legitimate author of immigration law, but so much of her rhetoric seems to imply that the Executive branch has that power. It only has such power as delegated to it by Congress. In many instances Congress has expressed a concurrent responsibility between the States and the Federal government in enforcing the immigration laws. It is the intent of Congress, not the Executive branch that should be addressed. It is the Congress that authorized the Executive agencies dealing with immigration (DOJ, DHS, DOS). She dishonestly limits her discussion of State and local constitutional authorization to arrest aliens unlawfully present in the U.S. who have previously been convicted of a felony and deported. She doesn't expand the discussion to show States are permitted to arrest illegal immigrants who have not been convicted of a felony and who have not been deported. The same statute she cites also directs the executive to work at the behest of the States, making it subservient to the States in enforcing immigration law in that instance. The depth and breadth of the Congressional field, when considering the Congressional intent gives far wider scope to State power than that to which the Executive branch wishes to be limited.

CONFLICT PREEMPTION--This occurs when compliance with both Federal and State regulations is a physical impossibility or where State law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. ACTUAL AS OPPOSED TO HYPOTHETICAL OR POTENTIAL CONFLICT must exist for conflict preemption to apply. (These are her own legal standards for analysis.) She then bases her decision on hypotheticals, against her own instruction. Notice also, that she says the State law must be an obstacle to . . . the full purposes and objectives of Congress (not the Executive branch.)

She also requires as a legal standard that the U.S. challenge is likely to succeed on its merits. The U.S. (the Executive branch) challenged AZ ON ITS FACE.

The judge's standard for a facial challenge are that it must establish that no set of circumstances exist under which the act would be valid. That a facial challenge must fail where a Statute has a plainly legitimate sweep. That in deciding a facial challenge, courts must be careful NOT TO GO BEYOND THE STATUTES FACIAL REQUIREMENTS AND SPECULATE ABOUT HYPOTHETICAL OR IMAGIONARY CASES. Which is what she did.


I would think a Conservative would argue that the solution is better Federal enforcement, rather than additional legislation that will increase the size of government through State mandates which also may burden local law enforcement.

First of all, a conservative would argue that the Constitution be applied in its original intent.

A DOJ 2002 memo says that States have inherent power, subject to Federal preemption, to make arrests for violation of Federal law. And that it is reasonable to assume that Congress intended that the Federal Government should receive whatever assistance states might provide in identifying and detaining those who may have violated Federal law and Federal statutes should be presumed not to have preempted this authority.

Congress has authorized various agencies to assist in this cooperation (LESC, NCIC, ICE, NSEERS, etc.) The LESC operates 24/7 365 days per year. It was created to assist officers in completing exactly the enforcement duties anticipated under the AZ law. In the past 6 years it has processed nearly 10 million information requests from State and local law enforcement. Over 90% of the info requests are processed electronically in under 10 minutes and require no human contact.

There is no additional legislation. AZ ammended its already existing legislation. The burden that you speak of is their job.

Interfering with Federal priorities and could be construed as the same thing. If the Feds want to focus on drugs, and the local Sheriff is rounding up a hundred day workers to hand over to ICE, you might just have a resource issue.

Just might have is speculation. The Feds and locals have always agreed to cooperate when there is a conflict of interest. It even stipulates in AZ ammendment that "reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status . . . EXCEPT IF THE DETERMINATION MAY HINDER OR OBSTRUCT AN INVESTIGATION."

So the answer again is to focus on more stringent Federal enforcement which Obama appears to be doing.
-spence

More "stringent" Federal enforcement can and should be assisted by State and local enforcement. It is the inherent right of the State and locals to do so, and it makes the entire process more productive.

Yes, the other Courts will chime in. No doubt the 9th Circuit will uphold Bolton's decision. When it gets to the SCOTUS, real and substantive argument may happen. Which way it finally goes . . .??

Interesting that Virginia cops are using the Arizona law in the same fashion

Interesting that Virginia cops are using the Arizona law in the same fashion

Several States are preparing similar AZ laws. This should not have been necessary. For some time, there has been great dissatisfaction with the Federal Government growing at the expense of the States. Constitutionally, the States are sovereign nations that have agreed to a union of cooperation and have delegated specific powers to the Federal Government to act as a representative of the States in specific, defined matters. The debate as to which should be greater goes all the way back to the federalists vs. the anti-federalists. The Federalist idea has been winning, despite the 9th and 10th ammendments. The Civil War was a major victory, with good intentions, for power shifting to the Federal level. That is all past history, and may be irrelevant today. The problem is the shift to Federal power, and the shrinking of State and individual rights and freedoms, appears to be unabated. Many who oppose this are trying to re-assert State's rights. If there had been a more reasonable Federal cooperation with States, this could have been avoided.

The problem is the shift to Federal power, and the shrinking of State and individual rights and freedoms, appears to be unabated. Many who oppose this are trying to re-assert State's rights. If there had been a more reasonable Federal cooperation with States, this could have been avoided.

Yup, it seems to have been forgotten that it was the States
that formed, and gave power to the Federal Govt.,not vice versa.

The problem is the shift to Federal power, and the shrinking of State and individual rights and freedoms, appears to be unabated. Many who oppose this are trying to re-assert State's rights.


Yup, it seems to have been forgotten that it was the States that formed, and gave power to the Federal Govt.,not vice versa.