Turnover of AZ Law...
 

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/2...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

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:

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....

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

Not at all. Citing relevant facts isn't random in the least...

-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.

magic wand
 

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.

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

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:

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:
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:

won't challenge those facts
 

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.

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.

: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.

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.

re:
 

~
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.

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 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?

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

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
Gallup April 29: More Americans Favor Than Oppose Arizona Immigration Law

I'd put more numbers in but they do images of the poll -v- text ;) )

CNN - couple days ago:

Numbers roughly in line with that biased Rasmussen:

Opposed to the DOJ challenging the AZ law:

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:

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,

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.