Judge blocks key portions of Arizona’s controversial immigration law

U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton has halted enforcement of critical portions of Arizona’s controversial immigration law, ruling that “the United States is likely to succeed on the merits” of its claim that federal law pre-empts those provisions.

As CNN reports, Bolton’s ruling bars enforcement of a provision that “requires police to ‘make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested’ if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person is in the United States illegally….She also blocked provisions of the law making it a crime to fail to apply for or carry alien registration papers or ‘for an unauthorized alien to solicit, apply for, or perform work,’ and a provision ‘authorizing the warrantless arrest of a person’ if there is reason to believe that person might be subject to deportation.”

After reading Bolton’s opinion, I’d say she makes a strong argument. Driven by populist appeals to public anger, Arizona politicians clearly exceeded their state-granted authority by impinging on federal responsibility. The state will no doubt appeal the ruling, but unless the Supreme Court is willing to overturn clear precedent — not an impossibility — that appeal is not likely to succeed.

480 comments Add your comment

Intown

July 28th, 2010
3:55 pm

Racists and xenophobes are dealt a blow. Repubs and Tea Party nuts get a campaign issue.

arnold

July 28th, 2010
3:55 pm

It’s just the start of dismantling a piece of inappropriate legislation.

stands for decibels

July 28th, 2010
3:56 pm

The state will no doubt appeal the ruling, but unless the Supreme Court is willing to overturn clear precedent — not an impossibility — that appeal is not likely to succeed.

Well, let’s do set aside the the SCOTUS’ demonstrated willingness to overturn precedent–I think Roberts and his fellow corporatist toadies aren’t real interested in rocking the boat on immigration, given how important cheap labor is to American binness.

Certainly not for what they probably view as nativist commoner scum. After all, didn’t those guys get thrown a bone already this year on that McDonald v. Chicago gun thingie?

Del

July 28th, 2010
4:00 pm

This case will reach the SCOTUS and could very well bring more political damage to the Dem’s in November and well beyond.

Sylvia

July 28th, 2010
4:04 pm

What a disgrace! Illegals have taken over this country of ours without fighting for it’s rights,or paying taxes, or abiding by it’s laws. California is overrun by illegals and it’s citizens are having to pay for their upkeep. What a sad state of affairs when illegals have more rights to services and assistance than the tax paying citizens who are being bled dry. I am appalled by this current decision. What a farce…I am Hispanic, parents were born here, father and brother have fought for this country’s freedom and to have our values and principals taken away by liberals who don’t give a darn for our country is hard to swallow. We need a change to take place in this country starting at the White House and down to the senate floor…What a joke!!!

dougmo2

July 28th, 2010
4:06 pm

If anyone who reads this blog doesn’t think that the SCOTUS will not overturn this this, you are crazy.

Peadawg

July 28th, 2010
4:06 pm

What a disgrace is right, Sylvia! The judge is just mad that Arizona is trying to do a better job about controlling illegal immigrants than the government.

Scott

July 28th, 2010
4:08 pm

Hilarious the few comments so far from the pro-illegal, anti-american leftist on here. Dont you fools realize that a vast majority of Americans support Arizona and DEMAND that something be done about the invasion that we are currently under. This decision will only anger an already angry electorate and damage the leftist Democrats that are pushing this even more. Dont believe me, November cant get here soon enough!

moonbat betty

July 28th, 2010
4:08 pm

Arizona should deport all their illegals to dc and chicago.

Granny Godzilla

July 28th, 2010
4:08 pm

Great news! I applaud the wisdom of Judge Bolton.

Glad to Have the opportunity to agree with Jon Kyl R-AZ:

“Well, there is one person in our state who’s a real expert on this in the judiciary, and that’s Judge Bolton. And because of her expertise and fairness, all of the contending interests from Arizona have been willing to place their concerns before her to be resolved, and she is right in the middle of this important litigation right now. They will be very sorry to see her leave in Maricopa County Superior Court bench. So, I have some mixed emotions in helping to nominate or to confirm Judge Bolton, but that’s how highly thought of she is.”

Brava!

Scott

July 28th, 2010
4:09 pm

Syliva, I couldnt have said it better myself!

ty webb

July 28th, 2010
4:10 pm

wow…we’ve got “racist”, “corporatist”, and “nativist”, all in the first 3 comments. This subject alone may break the alltime record for one side calling the other some sort of “ist”. Quick, someone get the Guinness people on the phone.

getalife

July 28th, 2010
4:11 pm

cons lose another one and are free to leave the country.

Scout

July 28th, 2010
4:11 pm

Heard this right after the ruling:

“The Obama Administrative refuses to sue ’sanctuary cities’ who DEFY federal law but sues the State of Arizona for REINFORCING federal law.

That is strictly a political and not a legal decision by the administration who wants this country to become just like Norway, Sweden, Denmark, etc.

If that happens, what about Lincoln’s statement that America is the “last best hope on earth”? If we are just like the rest, there is no hope.

By the way, this ruling and effort by the administration will cost them a lot of votes come November.”

Scooter

July 28th, 2010
4:12 pm

Hey Granny why dont you post your home address since you seem to be so concerned with the rights of illegals and NOT your fellow citizens. People with your attitude need to be housing, clothing, feeding and supporting these criminals. Put your money were your BIG mouth is!

JohnnyReb

July 28th, 2010
4:13 pm

Sylvia states it well. Bolton is a Clinton apointee, so this not a surprise. Hopefully, Arizona will defy the court. That’s right, proceed with enforcing their law. That is not unprecedented. It would be very surprising if the 9th circuit overturned Bolton’s ruling. The appeal will not get to SCOTUS before November, so the Dems will have received the political windfall. In the end, however, Conservatives will prevail either at the ballot box or SCOTUS.

Legend of Len Barker

July 28th, 2010
4:14 pm

Illegal immigrants are not eligible for welfare.

And, gee, Obama has actually been enforcing the federal law on immigration at a higher level than Bush.

“The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency expects to deport about 400,000 people this fiscal year, nearly 10 percent above the Bush administration’s 2008 total and 25 percent more than were deported in 2007. The pace of company audits has roughly quadrupled since President George W. Bush’s final year in office.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/26/politics/washingtonpost/main6715205.shtml

Peadawg

July 28th, 2010
4:16 pm

“And, gee, Obama has actually been enforcing the federal law on immigration at a higher level than Bush.”

Tell that to Arizona and California. Obviously they feel the need to take care of the problem themselves.

Jay

July 28th, 2010
4:19 pm

You guys and your “sanctuary cities”….

Sanctuary cities do absolutely nothing to interfere with federal law in any way. They don’t try to claim that federal law doesn’t apply within their boundaries, or anything even close to that.

They simply use their local law enforcement personnel to perform duties other than trying to find illegal immigrants. You can argue all you want about the wisdom of that policy, but you can’t argue that it’s some kind of local interference.

ty webb

July 28th, 2010
4:19 pm

“The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency expects to deport about 400,000 people this fiscal year, nearly 10 percent above the Bush administration’s 2008 total and 25 percent more than were deported in 2007. The pace of company audits has roughly quadrupled since President George W. Bush’s final year in office.”

Does that make obama 10% to 25% more racist than Bush, or is Bush simply 10% to 25% less racist than Obama.

jt

July 28th, 2010
4:20 pm

These un-documented democrats ain’t gonna help Obama come November.

99 days and counting.

JohnnyReb

July 28th, 2010
4:20 pm

Legend of Len Barker, please be reminded that Bush lost a lot of support within his party over his illegal immigration proposals. There was a rebellion. The fact the Bamster has done more than Bush on illegal immigration is not enough to explain his tyranny. That’s right, tyranny. He cannot pick and chose where to enforce law based on race or other social identifiers.

godless heathen

July 28th, 2010
4:21 pm

And liberals who do not live in Arizona rejoiced.

Dave R.

July 28th, 2010
4:21 pm

Jay, you could at least try to get the title of your latest screed right?

The judge didn’t “toss” anything. Neither did she settle any of the law in question. She merely put an injunction on portions of the law she said needed to be ruled in a higher court than hers.

And her opinion is not really that compelling, either. She speculates that racial profiling may exist if the law is implemented, yet has no proof of that speculation.

Peadawg

July 28th, 2010
4:22 pm

Getting ready to leave. But the fact that it was overturned is sad. We’ll remember in November!

Ninja

July 28th, 2010
4:22 pm

“He cannot pick and chose where to enforce law based on race or other social identifiers.”

Which is exactly what the result of this Arizona law would have been. I’m glad you agree with the ruling.

Jay

July 28th, 2010
4:22 pm

It means he’s trying 10-25 percent harder to enforce immigration law, Ty. You know, the law that conservatives claim he’s ignoring altogether and refusing to enforce.

Personally, I have no problem whatsoever with it. I’ve been arguing for stricter enforcement against employers of illegal immigrants for many years now, because if you can cut off the lure of jobs, you can greatly reduce the appeal of coming here.

JohnnyReb

July 28th, 2010
4:22 pm

Jay, you are well respected by most of those who post here. But, your post on sanctuary cities is about as lame as they come. Government cannot prosecute one city and excuse another over the same federal law issue.

bokasuki

July 28th, 2010
4:23 pm

We’ve waited too long before we put a stop to this problem. We sat back and believed in our government way longer then we should have. They don’t care about the majority of U.S. Citizens who are opposing illegal immigration cause it don’t affect them! If it continues it will pointout more flaws in our government that they don’t want. Get rid of the politicians and the illegals both. The Civil War
was a picnic compared to what’s going to happen. You can’t keep taking our country away, and our jobs and expect us to put up with it…..the South has told the people we will rise again……just keep going the way things are going….some haven’t forgot the Alamo.

md

July 28th, 2010
4:23 pm

I guess AZ is going to have to resort to the Secure Communities program. Instead of checking immigration status when pulled over, now they will just put them all in jail and use the fed process. Be careful what you wish for…………..

John

July 28th, 2010
4:23 pm

Judge Susan Bolton did rule correctly in favor of the rule of law.

Judges only have so much power and authority. A judge for example cannot tell the current government how to enforce the law. No matter law, the current administration in power will ultimately decide how those laws will be enforced. If an administration sees a political benefit in not enforcing a particular law it will do so.

The Bush administration for example did not enforce immigration law or secure the border for profit sake in which they gained politically as well. Nether this administration or the previous one were interested in the health or well being of American society. The point here is the fabric of American society has been severely degraded and our social system today is incapable of supporting future generations.

What has occurred in the past thirty years has been more about instant gratification instead of promoting social and economic stability. People who were against the Arizona law today may be cheering now but it won’t protect the future of America or the American dream. There is a very good reason why countries and societies have immigration policies and laws.

godless heathen

July 28th, 2010
4:25 pm

And how does the Obama folks identify the illegals it deports? I sure hope they aren’t profiling.

Jay

July 28th, 2010
4:25 pm

No Dave, that’s incorrect. She barred implementation of parts of the law that she thought the feds would likely succeed in challenging. It is a temporary ruling, but with a very high likelihood of becoming permanent.

And JohnnyReb, I honestly don’t understand your point. Can you explain a little more?

ty webb

July 28th, 2010
4:25 pm

Jay,
I applaud Obama for stepping up enforcement.

Curious Observer

July 28th, 2010
4:25 pm

Well, let’s do set aside the the SCOTUS’ demonstrated willingness to overturn precedent–I think Roberts and his fellow corporatist toadies aren’t real interested in rocking the boat on immigration, given how important cheap labor is to American binness.

Strangely enough, the judge even cites Alito’s concurring opinion in another case to bolster her opinion in this one. I encourage you to read the entire opinion, as I did. The judge pretty well guts the Arizona law. What’s left is hardly worth arguing about. In essence, she ruled that the most critical parts of the Arizona law were attempts to preempt federal immigration law and that the Arizona law potentially subjects legal residents or those awaiting rulings on residency to unjust detention during an arrest. She also slapped the law for imposing duties and judgments on Arizona law enforcement officers that they were unqualified to perform.

heartlandboy

July 28th, 2010
4:25 pm

The constitution is preserved, and the Hispanic vote is given to the Democrats forever and ever, amen.

Richard

July 28th, 2010
4:25 pm

The Feds wont enforce the laws on the books so the states have a legal right to. Plus it is illegal to be in this country without papers so those undocumented works are beaking the national laws. This ploy by the judge is to help tear down this country. If we don’t enforce our borders then we are not a country. Plus Mexico should be doing something besides saying we owe them, cause we owe them nothing.

Del

July 28th, 2010
4:26 pm

We’ll be hearing and learning a lot about sanctuary cities over the next several months. Eric Holder with this Arizona law suit opened up one big can of worms for Obama and the Democrats

Dave R.

July 28th, 2010
4:27 pm

“Sanctuary cities do absolutely nothing to interfere with federal law in any way. They don’t try to claim that federal law doesn’t apply within their boundaries, or anything even close to that.

They simply use their local law enforcement personnel to perform duties other than trying to find illegal immigrants. You can argue all you want about the wisdom of that policy, but you can’t argue that it’s some kind of local interference.”

Yeah, right.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-07-16/opinion/17120431_1_sanctuary-city-immigration-status-illegal-immigrants

Scott

July 28th, 2010
4:28 pm

Arizona should just proceed as if this judge never made a ruling. They should thumb their nose in the face of the federal govt who has been doing that to the rest of us since this country was founded.

AmVet

July 28th, 2010
4:29 pm

I have had very little to say on this matter heretofore. And unlike you armchair constitutional experts, I profess no such mastery.

However, two things now look pretty clear.

First, and this is not news, the enraged right simply needs somebody to spit on and since it can no longer be the blacks and Jews, they’ve had to, for once in their lives, show some adaptability and have chosen the Muslims and Mexicans.

Oh yes they cloak their animus with flowery verbiage, but it is totally transparent and that is why so many in the Tea Party, for example, are so ridiculed in certain quarters. Conservatives have a very long and undistinguished history of overt and covert bigotry. This is not even arguable. But if you ask one now, they give a blank stare and sputter that they are as clean as the driven snow, these days.

You see they actually know what is best for these minorities and are in fact their dear friends! But somehow even the otherwise successful and smart Jews just don’t seem to believe them. Strange, isn’t it?

Secondly, the neo-cons have very little respect for the Unites States Constitution. Again, their is much ninth grade eloquence here protesting otherwise, but nobody with an IQ of above 80 falls for their tripe.

And the reason is simple.

They keep sending goons (Nixon/Agnew, Reagan-North, Bush/Cheney) to the White House and elsewhere that use that sacred document as toilet paper.

So Uncle Sam will have b-tchslap the Arizona scofflaws and the faux righteous like Karen Handel and Nathan Deal will gnash their gums madly.

Good times…

Dave R.

July 28th, 2010
4:30 pm

Yes, Jay, barring implementation means “injunction”. She didn’t settle anything, she didn’t rule on a point of law, therefore she didn’t “toss” anything. In fact, all she did was deliberately pushed the whole thing upstairs.

TGT

July 28th, 2010
4:31 pm

I’d say she makes a strong argument

I don’t think so:

In essence, Judge Susan Bolton bought the Justice Department’s preemption argument — i.e., the claim that the federal government has broad and exclusive authority to regulate immigration, and therefore that any state measure that is inconsistent with federal law is invalid. The Arizona law is completely consistent with federal law. The judge, however, twisted to concept of federal law into federal enforcement practices (or, as it happens, lack thereof). In effect, the court is saying that if the feds refuse to enforce the law the states can’t do it either because doing so would transgress the federal policy of non-enforcement … which is nuts.

The judge also employs a cute bit of sleight-of-hand. She repeatedly invokes a 1941 case, Hines v. Davidowitz, in which the Supreme Court struck down a state alien-registration statute. In Hines, the high court reasoned that the federal government had traditionally followed a policy of not treating aliens as “a thing apart,” and that Congress had therefore “manifested a purpose … to protect the liberties of law-abiding aliens through one uniform national system” that would not unduly subject them to “inquisitorial practices and police surveillance.” But the Arizona law is not directed at law-abiding aliens in order to identify them as foreigners and subject them, on that basis, to police attention. It is directed at arrested aliens who are in custody because they have violated the law. And it is not requiring them to register with the state; it is requiring proof that they have properly registered with the federal government — something a sensible federal government would want to encourage.

JohnnyReb

July 28th, 2010
4:31 pm

Jay, the point I am poorly making is, all cities/states are under the same federal immigration law. Arizona chose to enact a law that basically enforces the federal statues, let’s call it the far-right of the federal law. The DOJ sues Arizona but does nothing about sanctuary cities who have placed themselves to the far-left of the federal law. And, there is a federal program that enlists local law enforcement in controlling illegal immigration. The administration is playing politics, not governing as they swore to do.

UGA Alum

July 28th, 2010
4:31 pm

Sad day when US citizens have to show id. Heaven forbid you ask an ILLEGAL ALIEN for their ID. I guess now I can get someone to spread my pinestraw!

Legend of Len Barker

July 28th, 2010
4:31 pm

I’m hoping against hope that this might inspire the federal government to look at overhauling the 1965 immigration law, which is the one currently on the books. It was supposed to be a replacement of the quota system, but is in fact a quota system. A very biased quota system that currently has reflection of the current face of immigration.

Jay

July 28th, 2010
4:32 pm

That’s incorrect Richard. No law requires people to carry papers with them everywhere they go.

As the ruling notes:

“The United States further asserts that there are numerous categories of lawfully-present aliens “who will not have readily available documentation to demonstrate that fact,” including foreign visitors from Visa Waiver Program countries, individuals who have applied for asylum but not yet received an adjudication, people with temporary protected status, U and T non-immigrant visa applicants, or people who have self-petitioned for relief under the Violence Against Women Act. (Id. at 26-27.)

Also, the United States points out that United States citizens are not required to carry identification, and some citizens might not have easy access to a form of identification that would satisfy the requirement of Section 2(B).

Yet under the Arizona law, all of those people could be subject to being picked up off the street and held in jail indefinitely until their immigration status was verified. And again, that includes US citizens.

md

July 28th, 2010
4:33 pm

“The appeal will not get to SCOTUS before November, so the Dems will have received the political windfall.”

What windfall?? 60+% favor the AZ law – this may gain some votes, but should cause the loss of many more.

kimmer

July 28th, 2010
4:33 pm

The fact that the Obama administration brought suit in this instance tell you where they are on this issue.

They should have been happy that AZ was willing to help them out in carrying out their duty to secure our borders but instead of a thank you they get sued.

Just one more log on an already huge and ever growing pile under the democrat party that is going to be set ablaze in November.

Del

July 28th, 2010
4:35 pm

Dave R.

You’re absolutely correct in your observation. This issue is headed to the SCOTUS and there will be a lot of noise made getting it there, which Obama and the left really didn’t want to hear.

JohnnyReb

July 28th, 2010
4:36 pm

MD, I agree, but the Dems are desperate. They are not only want to get pro immigration votes, they need to keep their base. Otherwise, less contributions, volunteers, etc. In the end, this mess will hopefully destroy the Dem party.

Jay

July 28th, 2010
4:36 pm

That’s right, JohnnyReb. Local governments can VOLUNTEER to have their local police enforce federal immigration law. And many have done so. But that’s their choice.

However, nothing in federal law REQUIRES that local law enforcement enforce immigration violations, which after all are only civil violations, not felonies.

AmVet

July 28th, 2010
4:37 pm

Hell you faux conservatives, including your spiritual leader Barack Obama, don’t even value the most arguably sacred law we have in the United States of America – habeus corpus.

Why would they give a ______ ___ about any others?

Granny Godzilla

July 28th, 2010
4:37 pm

Scooter

Sure, right after you get off your “all talk butt” grab your pop gun and volunteer for border patrol!

bokasuki

“The Civil War was a picnic compared to what’s going to happen. You can’t keep taking our country away, and our jobs and expect us to put up with it…..the South has told the people we will rise again……just keep going the way things are going….some haven’t forgot the Alamo.”

dude, that kind of “temporary alleviation of dermatological irritation
on the gonadial epidermis” is more funny than treatening.

Not on my watch

July 28th, 2010
4:37 pm

I was just talking with my wife the other day about illegals. I was so happy that I have never committed a crime, therefore, becoming an “illegal” myself. I’ve never:
-kited a check
-broken the speed limit
-cheated on my taxes
…and other petty crimes, because that would make me a hypocrite.

Granny Godzilla

July 28th, 2010
4:38 pm

make that “threatening”…..

Jay

July 28th, 2010
4:40 pm

Johnny, if sanctuary cities tried to block enforcement of federal law, or in any way interfere with it, you would have a very legitimate point, and I would agree with you on it.

But that is simply not the case. Local law enforcement is not required to investigate civil violations of federal law.

RW-(the original)

July 28th, 2010
4:41 pm

That headline must be some of that willful deception we hear so much about around here. Is there a chart somewhere that tells us when that’s a good thing and when it’s bad?

TaxPayer

July 28th, 2010
4:41 pm

Why don’t you Republicans fight to stop businesses from hiring illegal aliens instead of whining about borders that you cannot control, no matter how many tax dollars you throw at it. Perhaps you’re not really interested in stopping illegal immigrants. You just want to dictate where they work and sleep and eat… .

No bama

July 28th, 2010
4:42 pm

Regardless of this horrendous decision, the law is having the intended effect and will continue to do so even in it’s watered down form. Illegal criminals are leaving AZ and more will continue to leave as they should. They’re in our country ILLEGALLY!!! That fact that some people can’t understand that blows my mind!!!! Are we selectively enforcing our nations laws these days?

JohnnyReb

July 28th, 2010
4:42 pm

Jay, you made my point. There is nothing in federal law requiring a city enforce the federal immigration law. Why should the DOJ prosecute Arizona for enforcing it? Plus, although a city/state volunteers to receive the immigration enforcement training, it is a federal program. Let’s face it, this is strictly political on Obama’s part. Even if SCOTUS rules against an AZ appeal, the federal government can’t play politics with law enforcement.

Scott

July 28th, 2010
4:43 pm

Amvet, to call you and idiot would be an insult to your fellow morons!

Granny Godzilla

July 28th, 2010
4:44 pm

“Let’s face it, this is strictly political on Obama’s part”

Nonsense.

Palin

July 28th, 2010
4:44 pm

Obama should do like Great Ronald Reagan did and give amnesty to illegal immigrants. It should be called The Immigration and Control Act 1986 Reprise.

Ferguson

July 28th, 2010
4:47 pm

White people are always afraid of another race taking over. Wander why? Remember how these white criminals took America from the Indians and then made the Indians the bad guy.

Some people are stupid

July 28th, 2010
4:48 pm

This ploy by the judge is to help tear down this country.

WOW

Scooter

July 28th, 2010
4:49 pm

Turd Ferguson joins us to offer his brilliant assertion!

Starring Kam Fong as Chin Ho

July 28th, 2010
4:50 pm

Sorry Jay, but some of the “sanctuary cities” simply refuse to report illegals to ICE, a direct violation of Federal law. But lets no let facts get in the way of this debate. It is the Feds responsibility to secure our borders and they REFUSE. Therefore, States are going to step up and do their jobs for them. The Dems want Mexicans for their votes and Republicans want them to work cheap. The middle class is tired of paying for the Mexicans healthcare and getting robbed, shot and raped by the worst among the Mexican fence jumpers. So the Dems can prosper, the industries can prosper and the regular folks get screwed over by a bunch of new taxes and fresh crime committed by Mexican illegal trash. Guess what, we are tired of it and want this country cleaned up. At some point politicians will figure it out, maybe after November

DebbieDoRight Esq.

July 28th, 2010
4:50 pm

Del: This case will reach the SCOTUS and could very well bring more political damage to the Dem’s in November and well beyond

Del, it takes sometime 5 – 10 YEARS for a case to reach the Supremes, (unless, like the election of 2000 it’s for an urgent matter that can not wait for years to decide).

Sylvia: have fought for this country’s freedom and to have our values and principals taken away by liberals who don’t give a darn for our country is hard to swallow

Some of the soldiers who are now fighting overseas were BORN here but their parents came here illegally. If they decide to lay down their arms and go back with their parents, are you gonna take thier spot on the front lines? Just asking……..

AmVet: First, and this is not news, the enraged right simply needs somebody to spit on and since it can no longer be the blacks and Jews, they’ve had to, for once in their lives, show some adaptability and have chosen the Muslims and Mexicans.

So true. If any of them even knew their history, they’ll see that this is how HITLER started. First the Jewish people were blamed for the bad economy, then they were blamed for the crime, then they had to have PAPERS so they can travel throughout the city, then they had to have STARS on their clothing proclaiming themselves to be Jews. This is how it starts, that’s one of the reasons there was a WWII in the first place, but here we go with another bunch of uneducated people, saying the same things hundreds of thousands of Americans gave their lives to stop. How DUMB can people be?

Mr Right

July 28th, 2010
4:51 pm

White people are always afraid of another race taking over. Wander why?

What ever Wander means. Somebody don’t have a clue!!

JohnnyReb

July 28th, 2010
4:52 pm

Granny, when the POTUS choses to block enforcement of federal statues in one state while doing nothing about no enforcement in another, it is political. Even Democratic pondonets say so.

Don’t you love this stuff! Where else but America. We are watching the Democratic party self destruct.

AmVet

July 28th, 2010
4:52 pm

Scott Einstein, just keep on reading! You know you can’t help yourself! A pronounced lack of self-control being a notable neo-con trait…

Dusty

July 28th, 2010
4:54 pm

Well,

After liberals posted almost 334 hate messages about Newt Gingrich, I thought they would be satisfield .

But NO. Led by their incorrect leader Bookman, they begin all over again. Judge Bolton issued a TEMPORARY INJUNCTION, something Jay got around to telling you after he said the law was “tossed”. That part not true, of course. The law was not “tossed”. Bookman tossed the truth. But oh well, sounds more fiery!!

Governor Brewer of Arizona plans to file an expeditied appeal. Most parts of the law will still be enforced legally as planned. The Appeals Court can get together very quickly. The Supreme Court will not be ready until October.

In the meantime, why don’t you kiddies exchange recipes or have another bottle of PBR (Hi RedNeck) or smoke a little something to ease your eyes (Hi Getalife). You know, the usual life of leisure so advocated by liberals.

I don’t think I will stick around for the postmortem of the afternoon with the insults and THEBUSHDIDITS and the love for lawbreakers. I gotta run and see if France has won the war against al Quieda yet. It’s a tough fight but somebody’s got to do it!! Go France!!

TGT

July 28th, 2010
4:55 pm

As I pointed out on Jay’s previous thread right after this came down, along with gay marriage, radical Islam, etc. this makes the HUGELY popular AZ law even more of a significant topic for the fall elections! In other words, more red meat for conservatives (as if we needed it!).

Mr Right

July 28th, 2010
4:56 pm

So are the illegals still illegal now that the law that was going to make illegals illegal has been blocked ?

md

July 28th, 2010
4:57 pm

“White people are always afraid of another race taking over.”

Bigots like you forget that there are many illegals coming from Europe as well. They are no less guilty of breaking the law.

DebbieDoRight Esq.

July 28th, 2010
4:57 pm

Scott: Hilarious the few comments so far from the pro-illegal, anti-american leftist on here. Dont you fools realize that a vast majority of Americans support Arizona and DEMAND that something be done about the invasion that we are currently under

Remember when Bush TRIED his darndest a few years ago to reform th Illegal Alien issue? Remember what happened to that? Funny how when something intelligent, sane and rational is put forth (especially from BUSH), to handle a problem, no one wants to hear about. They’d rather build fences, spark zealots and talk a lot of crap while saying a lot of nothing. Oh, that was a jab at YOU Scout.

Don't forget

July 28th, 2010
4:58 pm

Obama’s doing way more to enforce our immigration laws than George (bailout) W Bush and he’s certainly not advocating the amnesty that Reagan granted in the ’80’s and yet the conservatives are outraged. Textbook hypocrisy.

DebbieDoRight Esq.

July 28th, 2010
4:59 pm

Dusty you’re sounding more and more senile every day.

Jay

July 28th, 2010
4:59 pm

BTW, those of you who objected to the word “tosses” in the headline had a legitimate point. It’s been corrected.

Where's My Party?

July 28th, 2010
5:01 pm

I don’t think Dusty is the one who played the Nazi card there DDR. Good grief.

Mr Right

July 28th, 2010
5:01 pm

Obama’s doing way more to enforce our immigration laws

Then why the lawsuit against Az. ?

Doggone/GA

July 28th, 2010
5:02 pm

“Why should the DOJ prosecute Arizona for enforcing it? ”

They didn’t. Next question.

DebbieDoRight Esq.

July 28th, 2010
5:04 pm

NB: Regardless of this horrendous decision, the law is having the intended effect and will continue to do so even in it’s watered down form. Illegal criminals are leaving AZ and more will continue to leave as they should. They’re in our country ILLEGALLY!!! That fact that some people can’t understand that blows my mind!!!! Are we selectively enforcing our nations laws these days?

Yep that’s true. Not that many people in some of these border towns. That means that a lot of businesses are going to go under. I can’t wait until ideology meets it’s worst foe – capitalism! Now THAT will be a real showdown!

Mr Right

July 28th, 2010
5:05 pm

They didn’t.

?????????

Scooter

July 28th, 2010
5:05 pm

Why can Lib’s NEVER answer the simplest of questions. Why do you support illegals and their pro-amnesty agenda?

DebbieDoRight Esq.

July 28th, 2010
5:05 pm

That should be “ideaology”. I’m cutting these stupid nails tonight!

md

July 28th, 2010
5:07 pm

According to logic on here about sanctuary cities not volunteering to enforce the federal laws.

By that logic, all AZ has to do is volunteer to enforce it – problem solved.

Del

July 28th, 2010
5:07 pm

Mr. Right,

“Then why the lawsuit against Az.?”

It’s called vote pandering. The good news it’s backfiring and Obama will have Holder and the DOJ to thank. This administration just isn’t very good at foreseeing unintended consequence.

Algonquin j. Calhoun

July 28th, 2010
5:07 pm

So, were the gestapo of Arizona going to be looking for sneaky Fins and Swedes? No, I don’t think so. The fascist Republican rabble are alright with storm troopers stopping people, on any trumped up lie, and asking to see their papers. Immigration is something the Federal government is responsible for. Arizona doesn’t have the right to usurp powers given to the Federal government and you Nazi bastards can get used to courts ruling against your dumb asses!

AmVet

July 28th, 2010
5:07 pm

Granny, yes right wing dumbness certainly factors into the equation. These people are not exactly the sharpest knives in the drawer. But what would you expect from a fringe group that almost to a man abhors education. Because in their parallel reality they have deemed it too LIBERAL!!! So they stay steadfastly stuck on stupid rather than get themselves edumacated. And it shows here, every single day. Whether the topic as you so saliently noted is history. Or economics. Or earth sciences. or even having a basic command of stand written English. (Note that Scott writes one single sentence to me and cannot even get the damn thing right.)

So they regurgitate back up whatever Beckerhead and Pretty Boy and HeadRush and Mann Coulter spew as a fait acompli. And strut their ignorance around here as though it were the Congressional Medal of Honor.

But even more egregious than their self-imposed and stunning ignorance on most matters of import (just how many times must the host show where one of these parrots says something utterly unfounded?) is their lack of moral courage.

The courage to stand up for the rule of law. Rather than just bend it to fit their warped worldview.

And yes, not to be overly dramatic, but I’m sure than MANY other Americans besides Granny and myself have noted an eerily unsettling comparison between these faketriots and what happened to my mom in 1933 Germany…

DebbieDoRight Esq.

July 28th, 2010
5:07 pm

I don’t think Dusty is the one who played the Nazi card there DDR. Good grief.

I played the HISTORY card. You can’t change or dilute it, (unless you’re the Texas Schoolboard).

Doggone/GA

July 28th, 2010
5:07 pm

“Why do you support illegals and their pro-amnesty agenda?”

When did you stop beating your wife? It’s a simple question…what’s your answer?

I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...

July 28th, 2010
5:07 pm

Arizona politicians clearly exceeded their state-granted authority by impinging on federal responsibility.

Hahahaha, ahhh, yes, did kookman really use the words “federal” and “responsibility” in the same sentence.

Geez, what a joke.

Newt Gingrich went on Fox last night to peddle more of his hateful, vile garbage regarding the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque,”

eewwww, aren’t we upset, with the …….. truth.

Just sayin…

Dusty

July 28th, 2010
5:07 pm

DDR

And you sound like a law clerk trying to sound like a lawyer.

If the French part bothered you, France declared war on al Quida yesterday. I am interested in their progress. Was it the French or the illegals that got you going?

Doggone/GA

July 28th, 2010
5:09 pm

“By that logic, all AZ has to do is volunteer to enforce it – problem solved.”

“US Immigration Law Enforcement by Local Agencies”

http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=16677&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1007

Lance

July 28th, 2010
5:10 pm

Normal – from downstairs

McCarty was an alcoholic who hated liberals period, and did all he could to ruin them. The people he went after mostly were idealists believing in the dream of Communism, and not the fact of the USSR.
Communism was supposed to be a workers paradise, all equal, all sharing, all giving union of people. The young are naive sometimes and he took advantage of it for political purposes. The FBI used inuindo
and blackmail to get their “facts”. Nothing would have stood up in court today. Read your history, it was an era of hate and fear.

I’ve read my history. The Venona project along with KGB documents released since the end of the cold war have shown that McCarthy was right about many things. In this case the facts do indeed have a conservative bias.

And maybe he hated liberals in his day because he KNEW that they weren’t just in love with the ideas of communism, but some high ranking US officials were involved in spying for the Soviet Union. If he was overzealous, it just might be because he had evidence that many liberals were enemies of the US. Would this proof have stood up in court – probably not. Was it true – absolutely. I heard a George Clooney interview in which he stated (paraphrased) “it doesn’t matter if McCarthy was right or not, what matters is how he destroyed the lives of those people”. If you are working for a foreign government and undermining the security of the US, it absolutely matters.

Finally, since you can’t dispute McCarthy’s message, the best you can do is a character assasination. What difference does it make if he was an alcoholic? He was a flawed human being just like the rest of us.

md

July 28th, 2010
5:12 pm

“I can’t wait until ideology meets it’s worst foe – capitalism! ”

Need wait no longer – look west to the great state of California. Capitalism rewarded them with an economy that ranked #8 in the WORLD. Ideology, on the other hand, has rewarded them with a 30 billion dollar shortfall.

Ideology seems to be “winning”, but that is not necessarily a good thing……

I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...

July 28th, 2010
5:13 pm

I actually approve of this ruling, however void of any legal standing or common respect for our sovereignty it may be, with a couple more million Mexicans trampling over the border, the unemployment rate will never go down.

Landslide baby.

And then we kick them all out.

Patience, just sayin…

JohnnyReb

July 28th, 2010
5:14 pm

I confess, I have mistated. This is not just politics, this is not just about the law, it’s also about MONEY. If the illegal immigrants were costing taxpayers nothing, this issue would be a lot lower on the totem pole.