A lesson for tenthers in the Arizona ruling

Why doesn’t our government enforce the current Federal law? While they are at it, arrest and heavily fine any individual or business who hires an illegal worker. The present law needs to be reviewed, but enforce it now! My grandfather came to this country illegaly many years ago; he became a citizen soon thereafter. Why do these illegals come to this country and not become citizens? Those who have and will do nothing need to leave. The decision is yours!

As for the Repubs whining about Obama’s stance, where is your proposed legislation? Didn’t McCain work with Kennedy and develop a bill? Now he says it’s Obama’s fault. John, now try to remember that 1. You are a maverik, 2. You are a senator, and 3. YOU can draft legislation for the Senate to consider. Oh, and it can be bipartison, something you claim Obama hasn’t done…but that YOU and the rest of the Repubs can put your ideas on paper. Get to work!……that’s what you are being paid with tax dollars to do! Oh and how do we pay for it?

• Link
• Report this comment

Angry over illegal immigration, and failure to enforce the laws

• Link
• Report this comment

Why indeed?

Who’s going to pick the tomatoes and strawberries?

Conservitards on the street (and in the blogs) may scream and yell about browns, but big business needs those browns to survive. “Natives” are so fat,lazy, and entitled they can’t be counted on to put down thier cell phones, stop texting and put in a 50 hr week to do such meanial tasks. Without browns a lot of tasks simply wouldn’t get done.

• Link
• Report this comment

We aren’t calling for the Federal to limit its powers! We are trying to get the Federal government to do its job, which Obama does not.

• Link
• Report this comment

Granny, this goes back longer than just 2 years. The gov’t hasn’t done squat for years.

• Link
• Report this comment

Good morning, Miss Cynthia,

The fact that Georgie Bush failed and Barry Obama is failing to enforce the United States immigration laws is not without precedent. Presidents, on occasion, choose to not carryout acts of Congress and decisions of the Supreme Court at least in a timely fashion.

Of course, Barry will have no problem carrying out the decision of U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton, which, as much as I would like to see it differently, is the correct decision under our Constitution.

History, however, has a way of diminishing the legacy of such shirkers, and, methinks, come November 2, 2010 and, again, November 6, 2012, the electorate may have a way of dealing with it as well.

• Link
• Report this comment

“But what I have shown is that the current administration is working the issue – and more actively than the previous.”

And that’s all fine and dandy. But I still don’t see what’s wrong w/ checking papers at a traffic stop. That should be done everywhere anyways…seems kinda like common sense.

• Link
• Report this comment

Ah yes, political correctness. One reason our country’s going down hill. You’re so afraid to offend someone.

• Link
• Report this comment

Pea…common sense isn’t very common especially in the Tea party and the wingnuts. First, there are constitutional issues and the exclusive right of the federal government. I would suggest you read the actual decision. It is spelled out rather clearly.

• Link
• Report this comment

Punkin

What you political correctness many call civil rights.
So it goes.

• Link
• Report this comment

Obama has lost on this issue. He should have (still waiting) come out and emphasized the importance of border control and what he will do to work on the broken boarder. All he’s done is get in a pissing contest with AZ. How presidential.

• Link
• Report this comment

“common sense isn’t very common especially in the Tea party and the wingnuts.”

Excellent response. I’d expect nothing less of you, KUTGF

• Link
• Report this comment

After all, governors and legislatures are endorsing such laws strictly for political reasons — to appease a nativist constituency that is angry over immigration. That backlash won’t be halted by common sense.

WHO is doing this for purely political reasons?!?!?! Common sense is only one of the things that is severely lacking in this woefully inadequate administration.

• Link
• Report this comment

Granny,

Think of the funds we could save if we had stopped them before they crossed the border illegally.

Seal the borders, deploy roving and static military patrols, empower the local law enforcement agencies.

• Link
• Report this comment

And like I said Cynthia, I still don’t see anything wrong with Arizona’s law.

• Link
• Report this comment

Oh how sweet–the AJC’s front-page website story coincides nicely with the AZ ruling! And it paints such a nice picture for those here illegally:

While most illegal immigrants live and work under the radar in Georgia, they have created an indelible economic footprint here, according to a number of experts:

● They contribute between $215 million and $253 million to state coffers in the form of sales, income and property taxes.

But then there is this account: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/02/immigration-costs-fair-amnesty-educations-costs-reform/

• Link
• Report this comment

“In Arizona, the primary smuggling corridor on the U.S.-Mexico line, there are now more than 3,600 Border Patrol agents, about 10 for every mile of boundary with Mexico.”

• The budget this fiscal year for Customs and Border Protection, the federal agency charged with guarding U.S. borders, is about $17 billion, double what was spent in 2003.

• The number of illegal immigrants arrested by Border Patrol has plummeted by almost two-thirds in just five years, a combined result, authorities say, of fewer people trying to cross because of the economy and increased security.”

More agents, bigger budget, fewer arrests. Sounds like most Federal Government operations. They better let Az handle it.

• Link
• Report this comment

LOL!!! This judge is has less sense and intelligence than even CT!!! Giving illegals more freedoms than legal citizens is beyond insane.

• Link
• Report this comment

Pea… apparently you did not read The Court’s decision. You can read for yourself.

• Link
• Report this comment

Granny…. what? That expensive fence did not work. Got any duct tape?

• Link
• Report this comment

Cynthia, you should get a clue about yesterday and change the title of this piece.

There was no “ruling” yesterday. No settling of law. No decision except to delay implementation until a higher court makes a decision.

This was a time-out, and absolutely nothing else.

You, who live by doing nothing except use words, should be more careful in the use of them.

• Link
• Report this comment

“if a reasonable process for sealing the border becomes available
I believe we all would support it”

10 border patrol agents per mile = 1 every 528 feet. Wonder why it doesn’t work.

• Link
• Report this comment

poor CT

Jon Kyl R-AZ strongly supported that radical judge, hope his voters don’t hear that…..

• Link
• Report this comment

My 8:12 needs to be “released.” I have all my “papers.” There is no cause for detention, unless, of course, there is “comment profiling” going on.

• Link
• Report this comment

TGT, I would take it to court since it’s unconstitutional!

• Link
• Report this comment

CT & Granny: those are admirable facts, but comparing Obama to Bush here is hardly bathing the Obama administration in a flattering light. Bush was an avowed amnesty supporter.

Here’s some other facts.

Obama Taps Sanctuary City Police Chief to Head 287(g) Program
———–
On Friday, July 9, the Obama Administration announced plans to revise the Memorandums of Agreement (MOAs) that are negotiated under section 287(g) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA). The section 287(g) program is designed to allow state and local law enforcement agencies to enforce federal immigration laws. For participating cities and states, this program is a critical tool for enforcing America’s immigration laws, because it has become a force multiplier for the under-resourced Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
The MOA changes, however, undercut the motivation of jurisdictions to participate in the program by forcing prosecutors and law enforcement to prosecute illegal immigrants for the underlying crime instead of simply processing them for removal. Furthermore, they limit the ability of law enforcement officers to check immigration status to that of only minor offenses. Essentially, without saying so, they gut the force-multiplier purpose of 287(g). These changes are driven entirely by political special interests and are not representative of the positive contribution section 287(g) makes toward enforcing immigration laws. The Obama Administration should not move forward with these changes, and it should instead promote the expansion of section 287(g) and similar programs.
—————-
Instead of building on past progress, over the past year the Obama Administration has reversed a number of effective interior enforcement efforts begun under the Bush Administration. Secretary Napolitano has argued, “We have replaced old policies that merely looked tough with policies that are designed to actually be effective.”[7] However, the numbers sug gest otherwise. The number of worksite arrests is down “by more than 50 percent from fiscal year 2008 to fiscal 2009.” Specifically, “administrative arrests of violators of immigration laws fell 68 per cent from 2008 to 2009, criminal arrests fell 60 percent, criminal indictments fell 58 percent and convictions fell 63 percent.”[8] Secretary Napolitano has pointed to increased efforts to target criminal illegal aliens as proof of her tougher policies, but in 2009, the number of criminal arrests of foreign nationals is up only slightly from the numbers of arrests in 2008 and 2007.[9]
In contrast, when the Bush Administration began enforcing immigration laws, the number of worksite arrests jumped from 845 in fiscal year (FY) 2004 to 6,287 in FY 2008,[10] and 1,210,772 illegal immigrants were deported in FY 2007.[11] Pro–illegal immigration groups did not like those actions, but these figures are not “merely looking tough.”

• Link
• Report this comment

No doubt about it…the “under the radar” labor force has been a boon to the “corporatist” interests over the past two decades, but it has also helped Uncle Fudd keep his lawn mowed and his construction projects on track, and it has helped Auntie Em keep her laundry, ironing, and cleaning up-to-snuff. (Wonder how many of you know what “snuff” is?…but I digress).

Georgie and Barry realize that the illegals provide a much needed resource (cheap labor) and, if amnesty can be achieved, perhaps a new and more powerful Latino voting block.

I wonder…could it be that some of our other minorities might need to be concerned about that new voting block and the influence it might come to exert on policymakers?!?

• Link
• Report this comment

Many people are saying that the AZ law is violating the civil rights of the illegals in this country. I thought civil rights are defined as:

“The rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and by subsequent acts of Congress, including civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination.”

With the above said, how are they violating the illegal’s civil rights?

Also, the law in Prince William County, VA is much tougher on illegal’s, but it was not challenged…. I wonder why? Let’s see, it is 15 miles from DC and many politicians live there….. makes ya wonder

• Link
• Report this comment

CT—-

I’m merely saying that your pesky facts are not the message that is being delivered to our soundbite generation, that don’t spend their life investigating political facts. Instead, Obama is being seen as a limpd*ck president who only wants to backbite state and local gov’t, further cementing the Tea Party narrative that Big Bad Gov’t wants to take over. This is why Obama will not be re-elected. Thats a fact. BTW, I’ll be looking for the Prez on Springer today.

• Link
• Report this comment

And since the AJC is so keen on the economic impact of illegals, I propose a trade: the 20 million or so illegal immigrants for the 40+ million aborted children in the U.S. since Roe v. Wade. (Someone should study that!)

• Link
• Report this comment

andy…again, there is a court decision you can read. Of course, you may make note that the court noted the impact on legal immigrants who have become citizens and their rights….. so for your purposes, your definition has been satisfied.

• Link
• Report this comment

Road

How about Stud muffin?

• Link
• Report this comment

Road Scholar….I think the court decision’s addresses the contention that asking all people to produce ID would pass constitutional muster and disagrees with you (at least in this preliminary matter). You may want to look at pages 18-19.

• Link
• Report this comment

Many want illegal immigrants out, many want them in, and some of us just want a Comprehensive Immigration Reform together with closed borders and illegal employment enforcement. If we take illegals out little by little you will notice that the consequences will be an even worse economy. Yes, there will be fixes to health care and public education expenses but that wont stop many businesses from closing or slowing their growth. Path for legal status with fines and penalties I say.

Word of advice to my many Georgia peach citizens and residents, stop believing all the so called “conservative” extremist right wing radio talk shows and media say to us. There’s nothing wrong to listen to their arguments, but we should look at the other side of the coin as well. Most people in the media only work for their party’s agenda. Don’t vote for the party, but vote for the character, the ideals, and the morals of an individual.

• Link
• Report this comment

Resolve to work harder Mr and Mrs American. Your government needs your money to help give the American Dream to some foreign citizens that they like better than they like you.

What Mr American? You can’t find a job? Tough luck, you deadbeat. Don’t expect much from the Government, they already spent the money.

We need a modern, tamper proof Work Card that every legal worker must show before getting any kind of job or receiving social services of any kind.

We already have a Social Security card, it should be beefed up, using modern technology. Currently the SS card can be faked by anybody with a color printer.

Employers who hire an illegal alien must be given a HUGE and hurtful fine and some time in jail.

Once every real American who wants a job, has a job, then we can consider allowing in temporary guest workers with a proper visa.

After jobs and free social services dry up, many illegals will “self deport” back to their own country.

All this talk about “profiling” is just a ploy to divert people’s attention away from the fact that illegal aliens have swarmed this country like a plague of locusts and that it has to be stopped.

When was the last time that you were stopped by a policeman and NOT asked for your DL, Registration and Proof of Insurance? Illegals call having to show ID “racist”.

BTW, only a small percentage of illegal aliens work in agriculture. Check it out.

• Link
• Report this comment

I notice the focus of the administration is on “criminal aliens”. Funny, I thought all illegal aliens were criminals, by definition.

Also, should I hold my breath waiting for the administration to normalize state and local law with federal law regarding so-called “sanctuary cities”? A jurisdiction chooses to enforce existing federal law, and is sued by the federal government. Other jurisdictions blatantly flout the same federal law and are praised for their compassion.

• Link
• Report this comment

andygrd July 29th, 2010
8:54 am
What you fail to remember that constitutional protection covers all who are IN the US..not just citizens……

Road Scholar July 29th, 2010
8:58 am

No, your Georgia driver’s license would NOT suffice!!

From SB 1070:
1. A valid Arizona driver license.
2. A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.
3. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.

The government won the first round on the order of federal law superceding state law; hopefully, the racial profiling component will be next on the list!! Again, from SB 1070:

“). A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution. ”

It SHOULD read: ” A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may NOT consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution.”

• Link
• Report this comment

Arizona should secede from the US, then apply for foreign aid.

Meanwhile, “Its’ a Wonderful Day the Neighborhood.”

The House Ethics Adjudicatory Subcommittee meets at 1:00 p.m. ET to reveal the detailed allegations of wrongdoing against embattled former House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y. Rangel has allegedly failed to disclose hundreds of thousands of dollars in income and assets, accepted four rent-controlled New York City apartments at steeply discounted rates, and used Congressional stationary to fundraise for a City College of New York school that bears his name.

• Link
• Report this comment

Bob…

Poll the blog.

I suspect we all think Charlie should make a (nathan) deal.

Resign before the hearing.

• Link
• Report this comment

Has anyone ever watched the TV show “Dirty Jobs”? That is the kind of work many Americans and legal aliens do every day. So much for the argument that Americans won’t do hard work.

In most cities the High School dropout rate is near 50%. Where are they going to find paying jobs if illegal aliens are allowed to come in and suck up all of the jobs that they might be able to qualify for? Do you really want to support all of those citizens for the rest of their lives on you tax dollars?

• Link
• Report this comment

Granny and CT,

How about some of those pesky statistics again……

25% if all federal prisoners are illegals.

In LA, 95% of some 1500 outstanding warrants for homicide are for illegals. About 67% of the 17K outstanding felony warrants are for illegals.

There are over 400K unaccounted for illegals with outstanding deportation orders. One fourth of these are hard core criminals

80 to 100K illegals who have been convicted of serious crimes are walking the streets. They will commit 13 more serious crimes/illegal before being caught.

Illegals are involved in serious crimes at 3-5X their proportion of the population.

About 267K illegals are in Federal or State prisons at a cost of about 6.8B/yr.

56% if illegals charged with a re-entry felony offense have previously been convicted of a felony offense on 5 previous occasions.

Illegals commit from 770K to 1.289K crimes/yr.

Illegal sex predators commit 130K sex crimes/yr.

Nearly 240K illegal sex predators walking the streets will commit 8 sex crimes each before being caught.

The brutal M-13 gang has over 15K members and chapters in 33 states, all illegals.

Overall financial impact on this country for illegals is estimated at 60-80B/yr. Factor in cocaine and it soars to close to 150B.

Bottom line…… all of the above and you do gooders are still hung up on not offending someone. This problem is squarely on the lawn of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, more so now than ever before. You can make excuses for this clown’s inability to solve problems all day long but the fact still remains that he is so inept that he is an embarrassment to this country and to it’s citizens. He refuses to enforce our laws, he turns his head the other way when confronted with this problem and has his chin in the air so far as to feel that all of these “common” problems are just an annoyance. Fully 2/3 of the population supports the Arizona law. We will hope that these same 2/3 will remember what has happened at the ballot box in 2010 and 2012 and get rid of this pathetically inept excuse for a President.

• Link
• Report this comment

Popular opinion (and voter wants) seem to be in favor of the original Arizona Immigration Law. While the President can over rule it there will be a lot of unhappy campers. He’s got enough of those already.

• Link
• Report this comment

Granny,

Probably??? Depends on what the definition of “is” is.

• Link
• Report this comment

All those facts tell me is that Bush was pathetic on enforcement, too. Although in most things I think Bush was better than Obama, I am no Bush fan, either.

What I do know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that amnesty is not the answer. We did that in the 80’s, and it fixed nothing, but did create a flood of new illegal immigrants. Obama wants amnesty, and that’s a big, big mistake.

• Link
• Report this comment

I’m a fan of “bush” just not that Bush.

• Link
• Report this comment

Having border control is F’ing retarded!

• Link
• Report this comment

What they need to do is electrify those fences. Those people climb like monkeys. They burrow like chipmunks as well, but a few electric prods would stop that. The government needs to secure the borders. Illegals walk around Atlanta like they have every right to be here. Their kids eat on WIC food stamps that taxpayers pay for. We need to get rid of all of them and now.

• Link
• Report this comment

a narrow reading of the US Constitution

There is no such thing as a narrow or wide reading of the Constiution. Only a correct or incorrect reading. People either understand it or they don’t People whe support the Arizona law don’t understand it – not a narrow reading but a misreading.

• Link
• Report this comment

The wingnuts continue to surge as if somehow the crazier the post the more it is going to change.

The “feds” did not cause this fight agains the poor “states”, AZ passed a law. The Feds have an obligation to protect the Constitution and the federal laws. Read the decision.

Murder is a federal crime….umm…ya might just want to look at state law. There are federal criminal laws and a state criminal law system.

• Link
• Report this comment

Bozo and his DOJ are again sidestepping the issue of immigration by making the immigration issue a states right battle. Bozo is more interested in satisfying and kissing the Mexican president’s rear end than he is in enforcing our laws. This country will not become a part of the “world community”, as Bozo would want but we will retain our identity as Americans living in the greatest country on earth and proud of it. Most of don’t want to be like the French, the Germans or most importantly, the Muslims. We want to retain our identity, continue to support our government when that government is not hostile to our constitution and our founding principals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That and the protection of citizens from the invasion of a foreign power is about the only thing that the Constitution guarantees the citizens of this country. The rest is up to them.

• Link
• Report this comment

‘After all, governors and legislatures are endorsing such laws strictly for political reasons — to appease a nativist constituency that is angry over immigration.’

I think you mean angry over ILLEGAL immigration. Correct?

No?

That’s right. Inserting that word destroys your political agenda.

• Link
• Report this comment

One does not set new rules everytime one doesn’t like how a game of football, baseball, chess, or checkers is played. The Obummer administration is defying the Constitution by not enforcing the borders and protecting the citizens from robbery, murder, and terrorism. Open borders leads to anarchy of the whole U.S. Defiance by the Obummer administration to secure our nation is a direct violation of his duties. Laws and the Constitution is for all Americans not for illegal people who sneak into the country. Obummer is failing not only on illegal aliens but in other ways as well.

• Link
• Report this comment

Government Motors keeps jobs numbers higher. What a great company WE OWN!

The Labor Department says first-time claims for unemployment insurance dropped by 11,000 to a seasonally adjusted 457,000. Analysts surveyed by Thomson Reuters had expected a smaller drop.

Claims have fluctuated this month due to temporary seasonal factors. General Motors and other manufacturers skipped their traditional summer shutdowns, which led to fewer layoffs and unemployment claims. But the impact of that distortion has largely faded from the data, a Labor Department analyst said.

The four-week average of claims, which smooths fluctuations, dropped to 452,500, the lowest level since May. Economists say jobless claims need to fall to at least 425,000 to signal sustained job growth.

The Community Organizer is doing a great job. CHOKE!!!

• Link
• Report this comment

Kiddies, be sure to watch Obama take the office of POTUS to a new LOW on the View today.

Next week he’ll fill-in for Leno or maybe Judge Judy!

• Link
• Report this comment

I see that Cynthia is already responded to other comments but has not answered my simple yes or no question.

Get over yourself, sport.

I could very well be that she is just not that into you.

Or that she is not responding because in this case, she does not support illegal aliens being here.

• Link
• Report this comment

The point Cynthia is making is that, despite obvious problems with the legality of a law such as Arizona’s, Ignorant southern red states will rush to court, spend tax payer dollars in a time of deep cuts and recession, to make a political points for themselves. It’s gravely irresponsible, and the people so concerned about deficits and spending should understand that. But, they apparently don’t.

• Link
• Report this comment

You can’t be for illegal immigrants but not for illegal immigrants who commit crimes. You are commiting a crime by just being here if you are here illegal

• Link
• Report this comment

One in the same

• Link
• Report this comment

Kamchak- Or more importantly doesn’t want address a very important question.

Really?

I think she did a fine job of addressing this in a 2007 op-ed piece.

Ms. Tucker–again–with your permission: (it would really help if you could provide a link to the entire piece, as this is all that I can find…)

…here’s some counterintuitive advice for the Democratic ranks: Don’t hedge. Lead. Do the right thing. Come out clearly and forcefully for putting illegal immigrants already in the country on a path to citizenship. This is no time to trim or triangulate. Show some spine. America is ready for reasoned leadership on this issue.

Let Republicans take the low road. It doesn’t end in a place the rest of the country wants to go.

• Link
• Report this comment

Ha Ha. Cynthia said, “law abiding citizens” in the piece Kamchak posted. For one, they are not citizens, so they cannot be law abiding citizens. Two, they broke federal law when they entered our country.

• Link
• Report this comment

Josh,

I personally like, “They are being treated like 2nd class citizens.”

• Link
• Report this comment

Presidential:

“I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Attorney General:

‘I do solemnly swear that I will support and
defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
the same; that I take this obligation freely without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully
discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So
help me God.’

Will someone please tell me based on the above two oaths how President Obama and Attorney General Holder get to pick and choose which federal laws are enforced ?

• Link
• Report this comment

What I really like is the mexican drug gangs….They have really driven down the price of meth, probably because they can buy psudoephdine over the counter in mexico.
And they are so polite, they only kill the folks who get in there way…I really want them to have amnesty.

• Link
• Report this comment

Yes, I want to expel them….Why the hell should they get a free ride when I had to obtain my citizenship legally.

• Link
• Report this comment

Kamchak- law abiding citizens or law abiding people. It still comes to the same conclusion. They are not law abiding people.

• Link
• Report this comment

It still comes to the same conclusion.

No, it doesn’t. You were the one who made the big deal about the word “citizens” and now you’re trying unsuccessfully to walk it back.

Gotta call BS on this.

• Link
• Report this comment

Financial Times- republicans have a relatively easy task in this election campaign- they simply have to show that things aren’t going well and blame the President. On the financial front, Mr. Obama does not have much to brag about. Love the straight forward nature of the Brits.

Now, wouldn’t it be nice if everyone came together and we simply cleaned house in DC and stop trying to assimilate with particular individuals like the President- please understand he doesn’t care about you as an individual. Look at what Clinton did to Lewinsky- Obama may hire you as the “chief blogger of mis-information” but the job want last long.

• Link
• Report this comment

This injunction is temporary. This will be take to the Supreme Court and overruled.

• Link
• Report this comment

Kamchak:

They can’t be “law abiding people” when they broke the law by entering the country illegally. Duh!

• Link
• Report this comment

Where did Cynthia go? Bawk Bawk. Did she cross the road?

• Link
• Report this comment

Cekker:

Don’t you know? When it get’s too hot for Cynthia she writes another entry on her blog, thereby ignoring all the criticism that she gets for her stupid opinions.

• Link
• Report this comment

They can’t be “law abiding people” when they broke the law by entering the country illegally. Duh!

Is there an outbreak of some unknown disease that affects reading comprehension?

…This is no time for Democrats to turn their backs on that heritage. America is too generous and compassionate to expel millions of productive and otherwise law-abiding people.

Duh indeed.

• Link
• Report this comment

We need an immigration Czar- what is Vincente Fox or Sean Penn up to- may have co immigration czars

• Link
• Report this comment

that’s supposed to be UNITED States

• Link
• Report this comment

Ref Starring Kam Fong…..

That might be a way to get the federal government to act but would go nowhere. The federal government has imposed all kinds of direct mandates (e.g. No Child Left Behind) on the states and the states have been powerless.

• Link
• Report this comment

Swede Atlanta……………..Very well put. One critical error. You labeled yourself as a Liberal so now what you said (no matter how well stated) went in one ear and out the other!!

• Link
• Report this comment

So does this mean the executive branch is free of its constitutional RESPONSIBILITY to protect the states from invaders, both foreign and domestic?

• Link
• Report this comment

Kamchak, it is your turn to swab the deck, matey.

• Link
• Report this comment

State and local law enforcement are not only allowed to enforce
Federal law, they are required to enforce federal law. Supreme
Federal law is treaty law, therefore the Attorney General
of the United States has jurisdiction in cases involving
aliens. The AG has to send ET home.

• Link
• Report this comment

Alatsea

Never been aboard a ship in my life, and not really sure I care to, though several of my friends have tried to sell me on the joys of cruises.

• Link
• Report this comment

Drawing Black Lines

The Drinking Age Act you reference requires states to pass legislation making purchase and possession of alcohol by anyone under age 21 illegal and for enforcement. The federal government’s only recourse against the states, however, is in the Federal Highway Act that claws back a percentage (believe up to 20%) of a state’s federal highway funds if they don’t comply.

Federal pre-emption still applies. A state cannot unilaterally say it is going to enforce federal law. The federal government can prescribe, as they did with the Drinking Age Act, the states to do this but that authority is nebulous. The real power with the DAA is the gotcha with federal highway funds.

The actual authority, however, for making and enforcing immigration policy lies at the federal level. That federal pre-emption is clearly embodied in the Constitution and case law.

As for the party of “No” I have to laugh. This Administration has tackled some very tough issues including the Federal Stimulus Act, Healthcare reform, Financial Services reform. All 3 of those are interrelated regarding the state of the economy. They were priorities. Whether you agree with those policies or not they were intended to address the acute needs to keep the economy from sliding further toward recession, reform a healthcare system that works for few and protect the economy from the excesses of the free market.

Immigration Reform isn’t something the Democrats have said No to. They simply haven’t taken it up yet. You can’t say No to something that hasn’t even been placed on the agenda. The President has called for Congress to begin work on this.

Obviously in an election year this kind of issue will not be tackled until after the elections and likely until the new Congress is seated in January.

• Link
• Report this comment

Cynthia and Granny,

Move to Arizona and see if your stance on this law changes. Are you against the seemingly white majority who favors this law? Or is it that you’re in favor of more illegal Mexican immigrants so that it takes away from the prominence of black crime in the news? Either way, you’re racist — just as much as you may call profiling racism.

• Link
• Report this comment

Granny Godzilla

July 29th, 2010
7:44 am

So Obama is spending more than previous administrations.

We are in class together and take an exam. All of us get a failing grade, however, Obama gets the highest score, say a 68. The net result is still a failure. That is unless the professor applies a curve. Should the nation apply a curve and say that is ok you got the top score or should we say the efforts are unacceptable and you have to do better?

• Link
• Report this comment

CT – The lesson will be taught at the ballot box.

• Link
• Report this comment

If this Administration continues to govern against the will of the people. There is going to be some interesting times ahead in this country.

• Link
• Report this comment

Have you actually read the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and anything the founders of this country wrote while drafting the Constitution? The whole purpose was to have a SMALL Federal government that didn’t intrude on the States abilities to govern yet kept an association between them to ease commerce, travel, and provided for a common defense. Are you aware that the Bill of Rights that we cling to so dearly almost didn’t exist as many thought it irrelevant since there was no power to regulate speech, religion, arms, etc. provided to the government by the Constitution. Its not that its a ‘narrow’ reading its what happens when you read the words on the page without a lawyer present to twist and turn it into what you want it to mean to push an agenda. Why don’t we just read the document as it was written? Anyway, I’ll take my ‘narrow’ reading of the Constitution over your far reaching, bloated, incompetent, ideal of a strong Federal government any day.

• Link
• Report this comment

Here’s are ideas for all foreign U. S. wannabes who oppose Arizona’s proposed law.

Just as my friends and coworkers from Vietnam, Russia, Slovakia, Mexico, Kenya, India and El Salvador have done:

Apply for a visa and visit legally. If you decide you want to stay, apply for a work permit and get a job and an extension to your visa. If you want to stay, apply for citizenship. It may be hard work and take a while, but IT’S WORTH IT!

My friend from Russia left his practice as a doctor to come here and deliver pizzas for a living. He worked six and seven days a week, lived in a small apartment and worked his way up. Now he’s a citizen, has his family here and owns a nice home. He’s a role model not just for immigrants, but for all Americans. He made the American dream a reality, LEGALLY.

If Arizona doesn’t get to deal with the laws as they propose, there will be vigilantes out there who take law into their own hands. Yay. Violence! Way to go…

• Link
• Report this comment

Once again the right loses – what a great day for America!

• Link
• Report this comment

Tech Man- spoken like a Tech Man- oh the wailing wall-

• Link
• Report this comment

Drawing Black Lines

It is indeed a law but the federal government has limited ability to actually make the states do this. They would be in litigation against many states trying to seek enforcement.

The real power of the federal government over the states is the pursestring. The state of South Dakota wanted to fight this law and that was when they amended the Federal Highway Act to let S.D. know that if they didn’t comply they would lose federal highway dollars. S.D. came around.

Let’s face it, money talks.

• Link
• Report this comment

HDB –

This blog is about Arizona. No, I would not have favored Jim Crow laws. I think I also mentioned in a later post about several of my immigrant friends. Some are white. Some are not. I have learned a lot from them and appreciate what it took for them to come here and become Americans. I did however forget to include my Canadian friends. I have several of those too. None of them are here illegally. A Mexican friend of mine was detained for six days last year because he could not prove that he was here legally. He’s been here since he was six years old. He agrees it sucked, but was his own fault for not keeping up his documentation. He’s not yet a citizen, but has since fixed the situation and feels the police did no wrong in doing their jobs. He’s on the path to becoming a citizen.

So in short, no is your answer. I’m not pro-white. I’m pro-legal. Guess what, I’m mult-racial, so your presumptions are as racist as Cynthia and Granny’s.

• Link
• Report this comment

Back to reality Cynthia – a CLINTON apointee made the ruling, what would YOU expect?

• Link
• Report this comment

[...] A lesson for tenthers in the Arizona ruling – Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog) [...]

• Link
• Report this comment

HDB -

About racial profiling.

Would you agree that black people are better athletes? Would you agree that you can get the best lawn care and painters and roofers from Latinos? Would you agree that Asians are better math and engineering students? Would you agree that white people look funny with their fake tans? Would you agree that it’s frustrating calling for tech support and an Indian who speaks poor English is on the other end of the call? Fat people eat too much. Fraternity guys wear a lot of khakis and croakies. Black people don’t like to wash their hair. Latinos eat a lot of food purchased from QuikTrip.

Based on your seemingly argumentative nature, you’ll probably disagree, but you cannot deny that stereotypes are not based on fiction. It’s a social science. You can make certain deductions or assumptions based on what is fact.

• Link
• Report this comment

What exactly is wrong with racial profiling? When 80 year old grannys start blowing up things get back with me. Until then stand down.

• Link
• Report this comment

Here’s where many conservatives lose credibility and where tucker is right:

“Democrats ought to make it clear that they’ll enforce the borders and crack down on employers who hire illegally, a cheaper and more effective strategy for addressing the problem than building fences. After a few CEOs have done the perp walk for illegal hiring, they’ll stop offering jobs to those without proper documents. And when word gets across the border that U.S. companies have stopped hiring, those laborers will stop coming. They come for jobs, after all, not jihad.”

Why is it that so many of those who insist on using the term “illegal aliens” will NOT use the term “criminals” in regard to those who hire them, but instead refer to them as “employers”?

Go after the CRIMINALS who hire them even a tenth as hard as you go after the illegal aliens and the problem will take its first steps to solving itself.

• Link
• Report this comment

And excuse the hell out of me – it’s mostly Mexican’s who are crossing illegally, why NOT profile them? Get real, remember interment camps for the Japaneese? And they were here LEAGALLY!

• Link
• Report this comment

Cynthia is obviously not a lawyer. The judge entered an order on a preliminary injunction. This is not over in Arizona. Further, the judge is a federal district court judge. There are two higher levels of the federal judiciary that will have their say.

• Link
• Report this comment

HDB

The great thing about this country is you are entitled to your opinions and I am entitled to disagree. And I disagree. When a bill such as health care is passed with only dems vote it is not “togetherness”.
And the cost will not be reduced. It will increase. Ed “the killer” Kennedy was trying to get this done for decades and failed. This moron comes in and forces it down everybody throat. Back room dealing, which he stated would not happen under his watch. Where is the transparency that was promised? The healthcare debate was going to be on CSPAN. It was not. This poor excuse for a leader is an out and out liar. The healthcare debate was going to be on CSPAN. It was not. This poor excuse for a leader is an out and out liar. You can not spend your way out of a recession because of the huge debt it creates. Sorry HDB, Obama is a loser and unfortunately so are all of us because the man LIED and now he acts as more of a celebrity than the leader of the greatest nation on earth. Talk to me after 11/2. The only consistent thing about his term is he is a LIAR, LIAR, and a LIAR. So was Clinton. Bush lied about WMD’s. But Obama is defiantly going to hell.

• Link
• Report this comment

Cynthia Tucker is a racist.

July 29th, 2010
1:06 pm
“Would you agree that black people are better athletes?”
Not in all cases…..not all black people can swim…..
“Would you agree that you can get the best lawn care and painters and roofers from Latinos?” Not in every case…what about tree surgeons?? Would you agree that Asians are better math and engineering students? No…depends on the foundation! There are black engineers and mathematicians.
“Would you agree that white people look funny with their fake tans?…maybe..but particularly John Boehner!
“Would you agree that it’s frustrating calling for tech support and an Indian who speaks poor English is on the other end of the call?” If one allows it to happen
“Fat people eat too much.” Not necessarily…in some cases, it’s genetics!
“Fraternity guys wear a lot of khakis and croakies.” Not necessarily…my frat brothers wear a lot of suits!
“Black people don’t like to wash their hair.” BOGUS
“Latinos eat a lot of food purchased from QuikTrip.” So do a lot of white people!!

Stereotypes are based on fictional representations of those who feel adversely affected by change and competition!! It only takes ONE exception to make a statement a fallacy!! Many bomber pilots didn’t want the Tuskegee Airmen to escort them into battle…but the Tuskegee Airmen NEVER lost a bomber!! You can not focus on one grop..without adversely affecting ALL groups!! After you target Hispanics, who’ll be next??

• Link
• Report this comment

HDB -

You prove my point. There are edge cases for every stereotype. Guess what, you yourself just said that “not all black people can swim.” That is just as much as stereotype as anything I mentioned. It’s not surprise that you’re a racist too.

Based on definitions of racism, we’re all racist to a degree. Maybe that’s why my Armenian neighbor hired an Armenian contractor. He’s doing a slow and terrible job on her house, but at least she chose within preference. It’s her right.

• Link
• Report this comment

Look, the political establishment in Washington, big business, labor racketeers, the mainstream media, and leftists in general had a judge fire a salvo on their behalf in this ruling. This issue is FAR from resolved; as long as the two major political parties perceive illegal immigrants as a potential voting bloc this issue will not go away and will NOT fade into the background. This legal ruling will likely find its way to the Supreme Court in time, if another legal front doesn’t preempt it.

The underlying issue is the legal citizens of this country are being sold out for the benefit of the elite. You expect to change my mind, or my neighbor’s? Ha. You’re steeling our resolve and ensuring we’ll dump MORE money into the political coffers of candidates willing to fight on our side. You doubt me? Just wait and see.

• Link
• Report this comment

HDB -

It’s not proof of innocence. It’s proof of legal status.

• Link
• Report this comment

The conservatives go on and on about the “rule of law.” No problem there. But why do they insist on using the term “illegal alien” but for the most part call the people who knowingly hire them employers, instead of “criminals”?

If you went after the criminals who hired them even a tenth as hard as you go after the illegal aliens themselves, wouldn’t the problem begin to solve itself?

• Link
• Report this comment

Just thought I should point out that Ms. Tucker made a major constitutional error in the introduction to her article. The decision that the Constitution was to be interpreted by the court as a final arbitor came through Marbury vs. Madison. The role of the court was originally to judge cases through statutes and the Constitution, however its “veto” power- by declaring them unconstitutional- over laws was not established until Marbury.

• Link
• Report this comment

TheMunn July 29th, 2010
1:27 pm
“HDB Looking at all your posts you disagree with everybody and unfortunately you are uniformed on most. This disease you have is called progressive liberalism, which is a form of socialism. I hope you can be saved. And by the way did I tell you BO is a LIAR!
It appears that other posters agree that BO is a LIAR!
I know it is not right to call my president a liar, but he is not my president”

Was your level of vitriol at such volcanic levels when the nation was getting BUSHwhacked?? I may not have voted for Bush…but he was the President…and I had to respect him for the position! Bush lied….but did you call him out on it?? I’m far from a socialist….progressive, maybe…for I saw what conservatism CAN do…..create atmospheres that generate Jim Crow and segregation….create “strange fruit”….

Don’t think so?? Ask a person of color who made it through the 50s and 60s….SB 1070 can lead us right back to the 50s IF we as a nation don’t put things in check!!

• Link
• Report this comment

I LOVE GRANNY GODZILLA!

• Link
• Report this comment

Cynthia Tucker is a racist.
July 29th, 2010
1:28 pm
HDB – It’s not proof of innocence. It’s proof of legal status.

So…if someone is standing at a bus stop doing nothing wrong, it’s legal for the cops to pull up and ask for identification! What’s the probable cause? What’s the infraction?? EVERYONE has the presumption of innocence….and under SB 1070, the cops will have unfettered power!! There has to be some checks and balances in implementation!! Right now, there isn’t any!!

Richard July 29th, 2010
1:30 pm
But HDB- cops are racist? In some instances, YES!!
Question: Have you ever experienced “driving while black”….being pulled over for absolutely no reason….save you’re driving a decent car wearing a suit?? Too many here discount the possibility…but when it has happened to you, you’d understand the lengths of police power and fabrication!! Remember Kathryn Johnston and Amadou Diallo!! SB 1070 allows warrantless searched (violation of 4th Amendment)……

Don’t discount the possibilities!!!

• Link
• Report this comment

Cynthia Tucker is a racist.

July 29th, 2010
1:37 pm
“HDB – You’re a moron. That’s not an assumption. It’s not a stereotype. It’s a fact.”

Not a fact……stereotypes are based in fear and fiction! Vigilanties are already patrolling the border….

• Link
• Report this comment

HDB

July 29th, 2010
12:52 pm

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) does nothing to reduce medical insurance costs.

• Link
• Report this comment

I grew up in Texas, it’s the same in all border states. There are now and always has been a large percentage of citizens who have spanish names. Any police force is going to have lots of officers with hispanic heritage.

You all seem to think the Arizona police are just a bunch of white crackers who hate every color but white. In truth, there is just as big a chance that the local or state policeman is going to be named Garcia or Gomez. And the majority off ALL of them will enforce the law fairly.

If an anglo (that means white) cop can’t get along with hispanics….he ain’t gonna last long.

• Link
• Report this comment

JDW -

Please try explaining that to the rest of these stubborn people. I’ve had to have my papers on me in all other countries as well. I agree with you. It’s like screaming at a wall.

• Link
• Report this comment

HDB –

Remember statistics class? You can make certain educated guesses based on a limited set of facts.

• Link
• Report this comment

HDB,

Your out numbered and out of your league. Real Americans Democrats, Independents and Republicans are in favor of keeping illegals out of the country. Why you and your progressive friends do not is moot. Case closed.

• Link
• Report this comment

Real Americans Democrats, Independents and Republicans are in favor of keeping illegals out of the country.

Why is it now, that you got your thong in a bunch over this issue?

• Link
• Report this comment

Rangel is having a bad day. My heart is pumping piss for him.

• Link
• Report this comment

Kamchak,

You must be looking up CT skirt. My wad is well in tack, thank you!

• Link
• Report this comment

Recent studies have shown that if you demonstrate irrefutably to a wingnut that they are wrong they will simply dig in, get mad and huffy and declare that the world is wrong for not doing what they want.
How many illegal immigrants got amnesty under Reagan?

• Link
• Report this comment

Hey Dick!

• Link
• Report this comment

Kamchak,

Thats a moo point

• Link
• Report this comment

For those who consistently rail against the workers but NOT the employers…

from azcentral.com:

Most Arizona employers aren’t using E-Verify
by Jahna Berry – Jul. 28, 2010 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic
Despite a state law requiring businesses to verify that all new employees are legal workers, only about half of new hires in Arizona have been vetted by a federal system that checks their status.

About a third of the state’s estimated 100,000 employers have signed up for the E-Verify program.

The state’s employer-sanctions law, which took effect more than two years ago, requires employers to use the free online federal system to check the legal status of all new employees. Those who don’t risk losing their business licenses if they employ an illegal worker.

But federal employment data and figures from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services requested by The Arizona Republic suggest hundreds of thousands of workers have been hired without being checked against federal records.

Any new hire made starting Jan. 1, 2008, that was not checked against E-Verify would be a violation of the law known as the Legal Arizona Workers Act.

During E-Verify’s most recent full fiscal year, which ended in September 2009, Arizona employers made more than 1.3 million new hires but ran just 730,000 E-Verify checks.

Some businesses would prefer not to check the legal status of their workers. Many others probably intend to hire only legal workers and aren’t bothering with the program.

Read more: azcentral. com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/07/28/20100728arizona-employers-ignoring-e-verify.html#ixzz0v60XjdSM

Why don’t y’all get after them???

• Link
• Report this comment

Kamchak,

Smoke one for me!

• Link
• Report this comment

Notice how “From the Government and here to help” insist on using the term “ILLEGAL” to describe the immigrants here illegally, but when it comes to the CRIMINALS who knowingly hire them, “From the Government” insist on calling them “American Business Owners”?

So much for the “rule of law”.

• Link
• Report this comment

I’m here from the government and I’m here to help

July 29th, 2010
2:07 pm

…from SB 1070 (the part that permits racial profiling)!
A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution.

It SHOULD read: A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may NOT consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution.

It’s racial profiling…because it’s the LAW!! And I’m not using the “assume” defense…try the “driving while black” reality — been there, done that….seen the abuse!!

I’m here from the government and I’m here to help

July 29th, 2010
2:03 pm
The question conservatives can’t answer,

Duh, let me see. Turn in the ILLEGALS or the AMERICAN business OWNER. Which would you pick, dumb-ass!

If you stop it from the BACK end (employers), you’d eliminate the problem at the FRONT end (labor)……Who’d I pick! Start getting employers to follow the LAW and the rest would take care of itself!! I call them undocumented…because they don’t have the proper papers!!

• Link
• Report this comment

The question conservatives can’t answer :

I am about as conservative as one can get and I agree with you …………. go after the business owners ……. every last one and the illegals will have to go home at least the great majority.

• Link
• Report this comment

The question conservatives can’t answer,

I have duly noted that you have no idea about how a company operates and therefore you are not worth my time in debating.

• Link
• Report this comment

mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack the LIAR Obama – BEND OVER, Here comes the CHANGE!

July 29th, 2010
2:12 pm
Friends and supporters have rushed to the aid of military mom Patricia Roberts just days before she was to be evicted from her Lithonia home.

This is how it’s supose to work, neighbors, family, friends, churches…NOT government handouts from tax payers.

But when it DOESN’T work that way…and no one can help….what are the resorts a family has left?? I’m not saying that it’s to be a permanent situation…but there are cases that not even family, churches and friends could cover!! The Roberts’ advantage: MILITARY!!! Not all have that aspect!!

• Link
• Report this comment

So, if the decision to limit the AZ law is that the state is pre-empting federal law, why doesn’t the federal government go after sanctuary cities that say they will not allow enforcement of federal immigration law?

• Link
• Report this comment

HDB – Oh well, peolpe make stupid choices all the time. Cell phone, car, big screen TV, house instead of an apartment….If you can’t afford it, don’t buy it. Sorry, but I have NO pitty for the “I need it Now” folks that can’t really afford it.

• Link
• Report this comment

I’m here from the government and I’m here to help
July 29th, 2010
2:13 pm

Here’s the point that “The question conservatives can’t answer” is stating: for those employers who are NOT using due diligence, i.e., using e-Verify, would you go after them with the same enthusiasm as you would the laborers looking for work?? THAT’S the key here! Since most Arizona employers aren’t using e-Verify (see my 2:07), what is their liability??

• Link
• Report this comment

HDB

July 29th, 2010
1:53 pm

That’s not a savings. That is the taxpayer subsidizing the state contribution.

It’s the federal government throwing out some sugar to aliviate the pain later on.

• Link
• Report this comment

I’m here from the government and I’m here to help

July 29th, 2010
2:21 pm
HDB, If you turn in the employers and cause them to defend themselves and it turns out they obeyed the law to the best of their ability….

Look, IF the employers did due diligence, I have no problem; they are not liable…but there are those who do NOT…and they are the ones that need to be reviewed…and fined!! (again…look at my 2:07)!!

• Link
• Report this comment

“Please tell me your not that dumb or maybe you are, who cares.”

For future reference, “From the government,” it’s probably best not to have two grammatical errors in a single sentence when you are calling someone else “dumb” in that same sentence.

• Link
• Report this comment

“The question conservatives can’t answer,

I have duly noted that you have no idea about how a company operates and therefore you are not worth my time in debating.”

Translation: I just got my @ss handed to me in a debate by having my hypocrisy thoroughly exposed on the subject of immigration, so I’m going to leave with my tail tucked between my legs and save what little dignity and credibility I have left on this blog.

• Link
• Report this comment

@ TechMan….to take it further:
The major elements of federal health care reform become effective in 2014.

The peak savings for the state take place in fiscal year 2016, when the state will save an estimated $250 million. But the savings begins dropping off in the next fiscal year to $145 million, then to $80 million in fiscal year 2018 and $46 million in fiscal year 2019.

Maryland currently has between 700,000 and 800,000 uninsured residents, according to state health department estimates. The report notes that after the federal law is fully implemented, that number will be cut in half.

The reason it will only reduce the rate by half is largely because the law doesn’t apply to people who are not citizens and because not everyone who is eligible for Medicaid applies for it.

The report points out that federal health care reform will have unique effects in Maryland. That’s because the state in recent years extended coverage to more than 200,000 people by expanding Medicaid eligibility to low-income adults. Maryland also has helped small employers offer coverage. In 2003, Maryland formed a high-risk pool for people barred from insurance for health reasons.

What Maryland is saying is that it will adjust during the time frame prior to takeover to insure that “the state must focus on bending the cost curve early in order to improve the outlook at the end of the decade.”

It’s better than what else that has been proposed!!

• Link
• Report this comment

All…have a great weekend….driving to Minnesota and Iowa…..

• Link
• Report this comment

Read “Nullification” by Thomas Woods and see if you don’t agree that Nullification of unconstitutional federal legislation is not only allowed, but is a functional, necessary, and well-established mechanism that has been used successfully to push back the overreach of the federal government. Those of us who understand the limits the constitution was supposed to put on the federal government recognize that something must be done to reign the beast in. Nullification is the peaceful approach that states must ALL be willing to take.

It was used by Wisconsin to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act (yes, you black racists, it is not just for upholding slavery), and it has most recently been used to nullify the Real ID act, and federal anti-marijuana laws (medical marijuana). When California legalizes marijuana outright in November, hopefully another unconstitutional federal ban will begin to fall and the rest of the country can begin the road to freedom from the totalitarian war on drugs and financially destructive war on hemp.

Cynthia, your lack of historical knowledge never ceases to amaze me.

• Link
• Report this comment

HDB

July 29th, 2010
2:34 pm

GOP Senators Ask Sebelius To Justify Claims About Premiums.
The Hill (7/23, Lillis) reports in its Healthwatch blog, “Last month, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told reporters the total effect on premiums of all the insurance reforms under the new healthcare law ‘is likely to be less than 1 percent,’” and “on Thursday, some well-placed Senate Republicans asked Sebelius to reveal how she crunched that figure.” Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) said, “Every objective analysis I’ve seen points to higher costs and more spending — by government, by families and by employers. … HHS needs to open the books and explain how it came up with these low numbers before we send the taxpayers a bill for another half a trillion dollars.”

• Link
• Report this comment

Here are some other interesting constitutional sections:

8th Amendment
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies (btw GM’s restructuring violated this one) throughout the United States;

VS.

8th Amendment
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

10th Amendment
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

If I were Arizona, I would declare that they are iminent Danger (from drug lords), being invaded, and that the Feds are delaying. Would be interesting to see how the courts would rule. The Fed would have to put forth that their uniform Naturalization policy is non-enforcement.

• Link
• Report this comment

What’s a “tenther”?

• Link
• Report this comment

Obama once again is using Chicago style gangster politics to attract Hispanic voters because he has lost the confidence of most educated Americans-regardless of race. The bad news for Obama is that George W. Bush is no longer in office. Comparisons are a moot point at this stage because Obama has been in office long enough to establish his own track record. Since the Democrats cannot run a campaign based on the current adminstration’s accomplishments, they have to disparage Republicans as being narrow minded racists.

• Link
• Report this comment

This Judge was appointed by Clinton, i believe in 93, do you think she wears a Blue Dress.

• Link
• Report this comment

Interesting how ppl post facts (like Granny) and inbreds (like Peadawg) don’t seem to understand…it’s not PC it’s Common Sense…stupid.

• Link
• Report this comment

This is real simple you LIBERAL lemmings…let’s think of our country as we would our house or home we live in….you with me so far. Now …what do we call it when a person or persons come into our homes un-invited??? Trespassing, so what does the law say about that?? The law says that if they have entered your home illegally you CAN shoot them. If these ILLEGAL trespassers can come into the country with your blessings ask yourself righteous butts this one..what would you do if they just came on in your house..would you complain,hide, shoot them. Get a grip you idiots..just some common sense.

• Link
• Report this comment

Cynthia, and the rest of the Media are buying way too much into this “ruling.” Its only a preliminary injunction. There has been no trial, and the Arizona law hasn’t been found unconstitutional. Stop acting like there’s been any “victory” here by the Obama administration.

The war has just begun, and something tells me that once this finally winds its way up to the Supreme Court, Arizona will come out on the right side of the ruling.

• Link
• Report this comment

Willie,
If one has Not figured out that Granny is not quite there anymore… you have not been on this blog very long.

• Link
• Report this comment

In all of my travels, I have never been to a country with more lax immigration laws than the U.S. In other countries, I am expected to have my passport and visa with me at all times. I have been profiled and asked for my documentation mulitple times. Each time, I produce the documents without a fuss; I have nothing to hide when I’m in a country legally. I EXPECT to be profiled when I am the only gringo for miles; whatever. If you are in this country illegally, it is apparently an infringement of someone’s rights to require them to have documents with them. WTF? The immigrants from Mexico and other latin American countries are some of the nicest, hardest working people you can meet. Can’t we find a way to speed up and streamline our immigration system so we can make it easier to become a law-abiding, TAX PAYING, citizen?

• Link
• Report this comment

FOLKS…Cynthia never..never…never sided with the G.BUSH WHITE HOUSE ON ANY ISSUE..NEVER….NEVER…NEVER…Cynthia is a racist of the first order…She is a racist..

• Link
• Report this comment

Kamchek
You keep referring to St. Ronnie of the Ray-Gun’s, cute name but Bozo and the Zarettes couldn’t begin to compare to this great American who, unlike our current Presidential impostor, Ronald Regan had Americans’ best interest in mind?
Before you can say it, I was not for his amnesty plan, nor am I in favor of one now, but from the sounds of your comments………….you do
You seem to be very open to the illegals taking American jobs………………how many have you hired in the construction business……………..that is if you have the authority to do so……………..
The question had been asked many times on this blog, “what part of ILLEGAL do you not understand”. Don’t hand me that crap about them being refuges
If someone wants to come to the USA, I have no problem, if done the right way, legal way…………

• Link
• Report this comment

“In rejecting key parts of the Arizona immigration law, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton agreed with the Obama administration’s views on “pre-emption,” a belief that states cannot usurp important federal powers.”

It is interesting how a state can pre-empt federal powers by re-stating a federal law that the federal government will not enforce, and then enforcing it. The question begs a million other questions: Can the feds pass, say, a federal tax law and then either not enforce it or enforce it on a subset of people? And more specifically, if Congress (at some point) passed a law, they EXPECTED it to be enforced, and it is the PRESIDENT (OBAMA, BUSH, CLINTON, BUSH) who are directly responsible for enforcement. It means that any single law that a President doesn’t like can be selectively ignored. So if a PRESIDENT selectively refuses to protect any (or all) state from foreign invasion, the state or it’s citizens are not allowed to protect themselves? 10 million illegal immigrants IS a foreign invasion. The President takes an oath:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

If Arizona is preempting federal law because the Federal government reserves the right to regulate naturalization via the Constitution, then the President has failed to defend the Constitution as prescribed in his oath.

• Link
• Report this comment

Now …what do we call it when a person or persons come into our homes un-invited???

But they were invited.

St. Ronnie of the Ray-Gun did that with his amnesty in 1986.

Again—why is only now, after twenty-four years, is your thong in a twist about this issue?

• Link
• Report this comment

how many have you hired in the construction business……………..that is if you have the authority to do so…

That would be none.

And yes, I could have.

• Link
• Report this comment

KAM,
Is insane rationalization your Only forte.

No.

Care to answer my question?

• Link
• Report this comment

Interesting

“The judge also temporarily halted Arizona’s attempt to make it a state crime for an alien to not carry alien registration papers despite the fact that under federal law ((8 U.S.C. § 1304), all aliens are required to “at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration” issued by the federal government. Contrary to Judge Bolton’s view, there is no violation of the Constitution because a state has added state penalties on top of federal penalties for the same offense. Otherwise, it would be unlawful for states to punish possession of illegal drugs since that is already a federal offense. Unfortunately, this type of tortured reasoning is applied by the judge to other provisions of the Arizona law.”

• Link
• Report this comment

Soon, the tenth amendment and all the other silly amendments will matter very littie to a nation involved in an internecine civil war.

• Link
• Report this comment

Excellent,making this organization do there job,the battle has just begun,more stages of protest only deteriorates obama,s future,well played pubs,go tea parties, he,s on a road to self destruction.

• Link
• Report this comment

Kam,
now answer my question..do you just let people come in your house…eat your food…take a bath…maybe hang out watch some TV..Get real dude…your just like Obozo the lame excuse maker.

• Link
• Report this comment

Kam,
Why do insanely assume that I am just now getting my “thong” in a twist, if you read any of my posts on Bush and any form of amnesty you know I would not approve of any thing he did on this.

• Link
• Report this comment

Kamchek,
When is Bozo having a press conference……………………maybe he can’t talk without those telepromters………….you guess????????????
Will you please reply to my question……………The question had been asked many times on this blog, “what part of ILLEGAL do you not understand”.

• Link
• Report this comment

The question had been asked many times on this blog, “what part of ILLEGAL do you not understand”.

What part of IT’S BEEN ILLEGAL SINCE REAGAN’S AMNESTY, TWENTY-FOUR YEARS AGO, DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

• Link
• Report this comment

Kamchak

July 29th, 2010
5:14 pm
The question had been asked many times on this blog, “what part of ILLEGAL do you not understand”.

What part of IT’S BEEN ILLEGAL SINCE REAGAN’S AMNESTY, TWENTY-FOUR YEARS AGO, DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?
Excuse me, I thought it was still illegal….silly me……………I should have know oh wise one would know the correct answer

• Link
• Report this comment

Scout, your Mongrel post is dead on.
As long as he is mentioned ( Rangle ) he will never go to jail because New York would see the biggest riot in history.

• Link
• Report this comment

Terry vs. Ohio + “lawful contact” (read the bill) = not profiling

The racism charge doesn’t hold water folks. The bigger picture is that the border could have been secured a long time ago by Repubs and Dems alike but they are just playing politics…business as usual in Washington.

The media and politicians will always try to keep us divided.

• Link
• Report this comment

Obama is the worst President in American History! Bush was bad but Obama is by far the worst ever! A community organizer just like the KKK and New Black Panthers!

• Link
• Report this comment

The Surpreme Court will side with Americans and the Constitution. Obama will be humiliated and defeated yet again

• Link
• Report this comment

Kamchek

Why are you such a friggin doucebag?

• Link
• Report this comment

not humping your leg, just backslapping your face for thinking it makes perfect sense to let illegals run around flaunting how they don’t care about the laws of the land.

• Link
• Report this comment

BTW
I am preparing for the next Obomba givaway.. I am in the process of converting all of my current investments in government bonds into gold and have arranged with relatives living outside of the US to hold what I have out of the country.
How are the real estate prices in Brazil??

• Link
• Report this comment

Cynthia Tucker,

Please comment on the racist Pro-Immigrant signs showing Governor Brewer as Hitler’s daughter. Clearly all Pro-Immigrant kooks are racists. Comment on this, or we will take your silence on the matter as excusing their actions and further illustrating your disgusting hypocrisy.

• Link
• Report this comment

This quack judge unintentionally did the nation a favor. Now that her incredibly ignorant, biased, and radical ideology has been exposed in her laughable dissenting remarks, this case will before the Supreme Court much sooner rather than later.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Katy, How can you say that a law Congress passed was “shoved down our throats.”The war In Iraq was shoved down my throat, ok? So was the Medicare prescription drug plan.”

CT, you debate like a third grader.

How was Obamacare shoved down our throats?? You love polls, didn’t see the fact that most American’s were against this program?

I not really in favor of any “wars”, but I think Congress voted yea on this one. Therefore you kind of lose the shoved down your throat.

• Link
• Report this comment

I think you missed the point Cynthia. The law is intended to aid the federal government in enforcing Federal immigration law.

If anything, Latino voters should be crying out against the Democratic-controlled Congress and the Obama Administration for not fixing the flawed federal immigration laws. They definitely have the votes, Cynthia… Why doesn’t Congress do something? If they would just make it easier for people to come here legally, the AZ law wouldn’t be so bad.

• Link
• Report this comment

Cherokee were divided and despondent. Most supported Principal Chief John Ross, who fought the encroachment of whites starting with the 1832 land lottery. However, a minority(less than 500 out of 17,000 Cherokee in North Georgia) followed Major Ridge, his son John, and Elias Boudinot, who advocated removal. The Treaty of New Echota, signed by Ridge and members of the Treaty Party in 1835, gave Jackson the legal document he needed to remove the First Americans. Ratification of the treaty by the United States Senate sealed the fate of the Cherokee. Among the few who spoke out against the ratification were Daniel Webster and Henry Clay, but it passed by a single vote. In 1838 the United States began the removal to Oklahoma, fulfilling a promise the government made to Georgia in 1802. Ordered to move on the Cherokee, General John Wool resigned his command in protest, delaying the action. His replacement, General Winfield Scott, arrived at New Echota on May 17, 1838 with 7000 men. Early that summer General Scott and the United States Army began the invasion of the Cherokee Nation.

• Link
• Report this comment

How about this idea: create a Georgia law that only requires any business licensed in Georgia to utilize the federal E-verify program for any new hires AND require the screening of all current employees through the E-verify program. Then businesses could not claim they did not know their employees were illegal (for those of you who are unclear – the law says businesses may not KNOWINGLY hire those without proper documents – that keeps most businesses within the law while hiring illegals). This would, in my opinion, be a perfectly sound STATE regulation which would cause mayny illegal aliens to self-deport or go to another state. Of course, expect the costs of Vidalia onions, chicken, carpet, and houses to go up – that is just the price you have to pay to WHAT PART OF ILLEGAL DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND! enforce the law.

• Link
• Report this comment