Supremes overturn much of Arizona immigration law

good news.

and welcome back, Jay.

• Link
• Report this comment

Great news

• Link
• Report this comment

Freedom, science, compassion, decency, rule of law = 1
Bigotry, hatred, fear, racism, sanctimonious BS, totalitarian state = 0

• Link
• Report this comment

STATES RIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, sorry…

• Link
• Report this comment

I’be said all along that Georgia should have legislated all law enforcement departments to go 287(g) or join Secure Communities. Those programs are set up for state and local authorities to do what Georgia wanted to do. Instead, they went the way of engaging in a whizzing contest in which they are about to join Arizona in the losers bracket.

• Link
• Report this comment

I did not see the votes…did Roberts vote with the majority?

• Link
• Report this comment

bu…but…but….what part of “illegal” don’t you understand?

• Link
• Report this comment

Watch for the Repubs to try to change the blog in……….3…….2………..1 .

• Link
• Report this comment

http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/25/12398271-high-court-strikes-down-key-parts-of-arizona-immigration-law?lite

Has a link to the actual decision

• Link
• Report this comment

Missed the last thread… but Jay’s understanding of economics would fit in a shot glass with enough room left over to get some people tipsy.

• Link
• Report this comment

once it rules mostly (or totally) against the the same Administration on the “Obamacare” act.

With this coming out and this ruling i thought the administration was going to lose big time on, are you sure? My guess is that we will find out Thursday.

• Link
• Report this comment

Herman Cain is attempting to discuss this on WSB. He’s making an idiot of himself in record time.

• Link
• Report this comment

“It also threw out a provision making it ILLEGAL for an ILLEGAL immigrant to seek work in Arizona.”

So much wrong about this sentence that I don’t know where to start…

• Link
• Report this comment

Here’s the whole thing, SFD (and anyone else who’s interested–or has trouble sleeping )
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-182b5e1.pdf

• Link
• Report this comment

“The Supreme Court will release Thursday all of its remaining rulings, including one on the constitutionality of the Obama administration’s health care law, CNN Supreme Court Producer Bill Mears reports.”

Well there we go. Thursday it is.

• Link
• Report this comment

Here’s USA Today’s take on it:
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/06/-supreme-court-strikes-down-most-of-arizona-immigration-law/1

• Link
• Report this comment

“…suggesting that Obama was well within executive powers with his mini-DREAM act order last week.”

That’s a bit of a leap there Jay.

• Link
• Report this comment

dB

Credit that one to the sinus meds. The one provision they left in place would give them room to operate within the guidelines of the two programs that I mentioned.

• Link
• Report this comment

“suggesting that Obama was well within executive powers with his mini-DREAM act order last week.”

What Obama did was nothing like the DREAM Act. Obama did a short-term “solution” to buy the Latino vote, period.

• Link
• Report this comment

godless @ 10:45

Have you checked out the rates of illegals being deported since 09?

Hint: the numbers are different than under Bush and they are not less

• Link
• Report this comment

Scalia – Karl Rove in a robe…

• Link
• Report this comment

That’s a bit of a leap there Jay.

How so? Is there another reading of that statement that makes it seem like, you know, the federal government doesn’t have broad discretion to determine when to pursue removal of persons?

• Link
• Report this comment

went WITH…

• Link
• Report this comment

Now it’s a race to see whether Obama and the SCOTUS will turn the US into Greece II or Mexico II first. What a country. Enter illegally and your entitled to free education, health care, and a job, and your kids are automatically citizens. I hope Australia will take th esame stance when I immigrate there.

• Link
• Report this comment

John Birch

Let me be the 1st to say “have a safe trip and ADIOS”

• Link
• Report this comment

Let me be the 1st to say “have a safe trip and ADIOS”

Let me be the first to offer to drive him to the airport, zeppelin mooring, or boat dock, or whatever.

• Link
• Report this comment

So it was a five to 3 decision, and Kagan sat this one out , like she should have.

Maybe Thomas got wise and sat out the Afordable Care Act decision.

Nahhhhh, i doubt it , and there is 600,000 reasons why.

• Link
• Report this comment

good news. people can break the law. cool. let’s get rid of all laws, police, court rooms

Never mind the couch, I think we’re gonna need fainting bleachers today.

• Link
• Report this comment

Any video of sheriff Joe Arpaio or Jan Brewer bawling?

• Link
• Report this comment

I haven’t read the decision and so will refrain from any comment thereto for the time being.

Now that the Supreme Court has ruled, though, those wanting to cite “law” this and “law” that might want to consider that this cabal pretty much has the last word on what is and what is not “law.”

• Link
• Report this comment

josef @ 10:56

But that is not new, is it?

• Link
• Report this comment

bookman parrot, like you really care about respect for and adherence to the rule of law?

Puhleeze…

Republicans/Libertarians/fake conservatives/hate groups are not remotely interested in solving this problem.

They had numerous chances to act rationally and work towards a resolution, including during the GWB administration, but in every single case they went all brown shirt on us.

They simply want to extract revenge on the poor and give a free pass to the law breakers who made mountains of illegal money off of their backs.

Vilify the weak and glorify the wicked – it’s what they do…

• Link
• Report this comment

The vote was 8-0 (Kegan recused herself) to uphold the part about checking the status when someone is stopped and there is reasonable suspicion.

It was 5-3 (Scalia, Thomas, Alito dissenting) against the other 3 parts of the law, basically because it was a federal responsibility. So those things can be done if the federal government chooses to do them (hopefully starting next January).

• Link
• Report this comment

BOTH Have you checked out the rates of illegals being deported since 09?

What does that have to do with my warning to Az?

• Link
• Report this comment

“if the federal government chooses to do them ” – Which is what worries me.

• Link
• Report this comment

BOTH

You’d certainly think so, though, listening to some of our constitutional scholars!

********

Removal? Ouch, interesting term there. Wonder if Andrew Jackson Arpaio and company have sent out the memo “the Supreme Court ruled, let’s see them enforce it.”

• Link
• Report this comment

They had numerous chances to act rationally and work towards a resolution, including during the GWB administration

bears repeating that this was one issue where I thought GWB and some of the senate Republicans were pretty reasonable, back in the day. I don’t know that the President could’ve overcome the reactionary element from his party (and from some Democrats, of course) hell-bent on demonizing undocumented workers.

• Link
• Report this comment

man it sucks if you were one of the people who waited months or years to gain lawful immigration status.

maybe if we are lucky, we can get all immigrants to come here without documentation or by using the proper methods.

Why should we make anyone wait at all? Why truely bother ourselves with borders?

• Link
• Report this comment

This decision says that immigration is a Federal matter and not in the states authority to challenge them. It says nothing that the current federal laws won’t be upheld. Get a grip people.

Also, I guess Brewer will be waging her finger at the Supreme Court now since they shot her one finger.

• Link
• Report this comment

The Federal Gov’t is responsible for immigration law. Our current immigration legal framework is broken causing a negative effect on local and state economies. But it is unconstitutional for a state or municipality to move to protect themselves where the Federal Gov’t fails. Ridiculous. The true shame is this ….AGAIN….is that our Congress is so noneffective that Arizona would need to try to do this themselves anyway. It’s a shame the Judicial and Executive Branch can’t hold Congress in contempt. .

• Link
• Report this comment

It’s a shame the Judicial and Executive Branch can’t hold Congress in contempt. .

Given the rate of recidivism (yes, that’s the term I want to use ), constituents don’t seem to want to hold their Congresscritters in contempt either.

• Link
• Report this comment

They leave the “paper please” component in? Really. What papers? There is no national ID card. Think about it. If you have a green card, you are fine. If you are born here…how do you prove you are a citizen of the United States to a police officer.

• Link
• Report this comment

They can still ask to see papers but the rest of the law was struck down.

They want to see how checking papers is carried out and not profiling.

It opens the States up for lawsuits on profiling.

• Link
• Report this comment

ByteMe

Yep. All they need to do is look at how police departments run their 287(g) programs. That’s the core of how that program works. Instead, you have some people believing the rhetoric and completely ignoring common sense. This could have been easily handled from the time they started the legislative process in AZ.

• Link
• Report this comment

godless

My bad, it was more along the lines if “AZ doesn’t do, then they Dems could…………..”

Apologize if I misconstrued your original post. But my overall sentiment is still the same. Doubt that will happen

• Link
• Report this comment

josef

• Link
• Report this comment

USMC @ 11:11

I’m sure many of the businesses owners that employ them are rejoicing in the streets

• Link
• Report this comment

Both, Stand, et al – Typical lib logic. Let’s have an illegal home for dinner, but slam on a hard-working, law-abiding citizen like me because you don’t happen to agree with my opinions. Preach tolerance, but be totally intolerant, and disrespectful, of those you disagree with. Hypocrits and fools.

• Link
• Report this comment

If you are born here…how do you prove you are a citizen of the United States to a police officer.

There are ways that people who are PROPERLY trained in immigration law can determine that very quickly. Depending on the age, if nothing else, there are records held by vital statistics departments all across the country. Given the idea that many people still assume that “illegal” equals Mexican and can’t tell the difference between Mexicans, Guatemalans, and Salvadorians, I doubt that those same people could ever grasp the concept that there are ways to quickly determine citizenship.

• Link
• Report this comment

JOseph…There is no law requiring a passport. There is no law requiring a drivers license. You can be an American citizen and not have a passport or a drivers license.

• Link
• Report this comment

but slam on a hard-working, law-abiding citizen like me because you don’t happen to agree with my opinions.

Wrap yourself in the flag while you’re at it. If you can’t defend your opinion without appeals to emotion, then maybe your opinion is flawed.

• Link
• Report this comment

citizen united was upheld again.

• Link
• Report this comment

Birch

Quit your crying. It was you that said you hope Australia accepts you.

I just said have a safe trip.

You want to go, BYE BYE.

I don’t know you, why would I wasted anytime attempting to keep you here in the US if you wish to go to Australia.

As for your opinion, no one attempted to stop you from expressing it, you are just upset that some didn’t agree with your opinion and expressed their own.

Now take a deep breath. It will be ok

• Link
• Report this comment

USMC @ 11:11

I’m sure many of the businesses owners that employ them are rejoicing in the streets

-____________________

It’s still illegal for an employer to hire an illegal. The employer has broken the criminal law.

• Link
• Report this comment

“United States passport”

And what if you don’t have one?

• Link
• Report this comment

They struck down 3 of 4 provisions and you call that a win. The one they did uphold was the one you libs were howling about… LOL…Police officers will still be able to check the immigration status of those they suspect may be in the country illegally.And thats the main thing Brewer wanted.

• Link
• Report this comment

Oscar

I clearly know that, but it hasn’t stopped many employers from hiring illegals because they generally save money when hiring them vs a legal resident. The more that are here, the more options they have in terms of hiring.

Get it?

• Link
• Report this comment

Ooo 5-3 decision

I assume jay will be equally judicious in his language if obamacare comes down to a 5-4 vote

• Link
• Report this comment

“United States passport”

And what if you don’t have one?

It all depends on the age. Birth records are one means of proof. There’s other ways of finding out too.

• Link
• Report this comment

Mysty

I am aware there is no such law, but you asked how. I have a passport, I don’t have a driver’s license. The point for me is that you can be an “undocumented” native the same as an “undocumented alien.” It’s best to be prepared for “papers please” in either case. The passport is the unimpeachable document for establishing citizenship.

• Link
• Report this comment

The Supreme Burrito’s have spoken…

• Link
• Report this comment

Sure would be nice if the Federal Gov’t actually deported illegals. There are hundreds here in Roswell (documented by Police Chief’s story previously) and the Feds are doing NOTHING! This is just another blow to States’ Rights.

• Link
• Report this comment

You would think that the Supreme Court was running for office

…for Pete’s sake!

• Link
• Report this comment

Peadawg

And that would be different from most past elections, how?

You are stating something that was a given before Obama’s announcement and the SC decision, but do carry on with the talking points

• Link
• Report this comment

“Supremes overturn much of Arizona immigration law”

Mexico must be laughing their collective arses off!

“Gringos Tontitos! LOL!

• Link
• Report this comment

“It all depends on the age. Birth records are one means of proof. There’s other ways of finding out too”

Bro – actually, I do know that…I just wondered if Josef did! And there’s no doubt that if you care enough, and are willing to pay for it…ANY document can be faked. Even a passport.

• Link
• Report this comment

“He’s a corporate skank first and foremost. He’ll never turn in that card.”

-Says the angry little unaccomplished one on the blog.

• Link
• Report this comment

So it’s not up to the states to decide what federal priorities should be and how to enforce those priorities.

Fine.

Ty webb – Peadawg

“…suggesting that Obama was well within executive powers with his mini-DREAM act order last week.”

That’s a bit of a leap there Jay.

From Jay’s lead: “Court notes that “Removal is a civil matter, and one of its principal features is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials, who must decide whether to pursue removal at all.”

The issue is the right of the Executive branch to decide how to enforce civil matters. That immigration officials have broad discretion in discharging their duties. That encompasses Pres Obama’s directive last week.

_________________________________________________

“Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.”

So Chief Justice Roberts wants the Court to not give support to those who seek polarization by having 5-4 rulings split along ideological divisions? The real test of that will be revealed Thursday. If Roberts sides with Ginsberg and Breyer again, we’ve got a whole new Court.

And a few apologies due, also.

• Link
• Report this comment

Gordon — “It was 5-3 (Scalia, Thomas, Alito dissenting) against the other 3 parts of the law”

A century or so ago, immigrants named Scalia and Alito would have been the “undesirables.”

Seems like there’s always some group or another that gets demogogued for political advantage. As Chris Rock says, “that train’s ALWAYS on time.”

• Link
• Report this comment

“He’s a corporate skank first and foremost. He’ll never turn in that card.”

ah, and here I thought that throwing the illegals a bone would’ve converted all of today’s football spikers…so he’s a hero and a heel…got it.

• Link
• Report this comment

Libs hate it when the rich don’t pay taxes, but bring the illegals in for the same purpose and it’s all good!!!

LMAO!!!

• Link
• Report this comment

Joseph,
You are wrong again. The police can check status if people they have arrested for other crimes, but they cannot stop you for suspicion of being illegal and no other reason…

• Link
• Report this comment

Brosephus — “Given the idea that many people still assume that “illegal” equals Mexican and can’t tell the difference between Mexicans, Guatemalans, and Salvadorians, I doubt that those same people could ever grasp the concept that there are ways to quickly determine citizenship.”

Not to mention that some people still assume that “Hispanic” automatically means “illegal.” We have spoken of my wife’s challenges in this area before.

• Link
• Report this comment

“A century or so ago, immigrants named Scalia and Alito would have been the “undesirables.”

A century or so ago, there were no welfare freebies awaiting Scalia and Alito’s ancestors. They came here to work and make it on their own. And they went through proper procedures, were documented, and came here legally.

• Link
• Report this comment

Paul @ 11:28

Not sure about the Thursday ruling, however I mentioned awhile back when Jay had a column about healthcare that Roberts would have some surprises over the years.

Overall I do think he will vote majority with the “right leaning” Justices, however I think he will be shaking it up from time to time. Again, not sure about Thursday, but I doubt he will be the “sure” vote that many on the right expect

• Link
• Report this comment

I assume jay will be equally judicious in his language if obamacare comes down to a 5-4 vote

Jm, there was a time when 5-4 votes – either way – on very contentious decisions, were considered something of a failure on the part of a Chief Justice. I guess that’s just a quaint notion now.

But you, and others, might want to recall that (just to pick two very well known instances) Roe v. Wade was a 9-2 vote, and Brown v. Board of Ed was unanimous.

• Link
• Report this comment

J. Birch — “slam on a hard-working, law-abiding citizen like me because you don’t happen to agree with my opinions”

Climb down off the cross, ya DRAMA QUEEN.

• Link
• Report this comment

‘We can now proceed with Georgia’s law which will make it mandatory that during routine stops you immigration status will be checked…’

Wrong again. Why are you against the constitution?

• Link
• Report this comment

Wouldn’t it be fun if all the people who support illegal immigration were forced to host a family of illegals in their home.

• Link
• Report this comment

About passports…I know a guy…

• Link
• Report this comment

BROSEPHUS

Of course, I defer to you there…

I’ve been following that Puerto Rico one…interesting, eh?

• Link
• Report this comment

JAY

• Link
• Report this comment

Ben Shockley

June 25th, 2012
11:36 am

Some of us do help out all we can….just saying…

• Link
• Report this comment

JAY
@ 11:38

Thanks and am looking forward to the exploration of the Georgia law…

• Link
• Report this comment

Normal Free…Pro Human Rights Thug…And liking it!:

I didn’t say police could stop you if you look illegal. But if you’re walking funny going down the street and I perceive that you’re drunk and stop you I could certainly check your status… I guarantee that traffic violations and car accidents will certainly go down after this ruling. Illegals will drive straight and narrow.. lol…

• Link
• Report this comment

Wouldn’t it be fun if all the people who support illegal immigration were forced to host a family of illegals in their home.

It’d be a lot more fun if conservatives were forced to go an entire day without using Ye Olde “y’all are hypocrites because you don’t personally do something you are ill-equipped to do, that you want a government agency tasked with actually doing that thing, to do” argument.

• Link
• Report this comment

“This is wonderful news for our beloved country! God bless the US Supreme Court for its infinite wisdom.

Now, to all of our brethren in the US…keep those Western Union Money Orders rolling down Veracruz way!”

• Link
• Report this comment

Im guessing Sheriff Joe out in Ariz will continue to enforce the
law his way with this ruling. The people in his district love him and
our Justice Dept just can’t prove he is doing anything wrong…

Feds need to do their job and enforce the laws of the land… till
them sos…..

• Link
• Report this comment

JHM

I can only imagine what your wife goes through at times.

————–

josef

That one was a big loophole closing right there. The one thing is, you can’t pass yourself off as a member of a particular group when being confronted by an actual member of said group. Those interactions are always quite amusing to witness.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Anybody got an idea how many $ are paid to Social Security and Medicare by illegal immigrants that they have no chance of drawing?”

or how much of infrastructure(roads, highways, bridge), protection(fire/police), or education they “use” without ever paying for.

• Link
• Report this comment

Scalia seems to believe that Georgia has the right to pass laws excluding people from certain other states from coming to Georgia. Alabama citizens for instance can be removed from the State of Georgia according to him.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Wouldn’t it be fun if all the people who support illegal immigration were forced to host a family of illegals in their home.”

I don’t do a papers check at my door, even if some of the new statutes seem to imply I should, and I’m pretty sure some of them may be illegals…do you check the documents of the folks waiting your table, frying your burgers, cleaning your hotel room etc.? If you don’t, then you’re complicent…

• Link
• Report this comment

Ben Shockley

June 25th, 2012
11:36 am
Wouldn’t it be fun if all the people who support illegal immigration were forced to host a family of illegals in their home.

About as good as all the anti-abortion people adopting unwanted children.

• Link
• Report this comment

PJ — ““In United States, and other English-speaking countries to which they immigrated, such as Canada and Australia, the later Italian immigrants were often viewed as perpetual foreigners in a lower class, restricted to blue collar jobs. Their Catholicism, frequent lack of formal education, folkways and competition with earlier immigrants for lower paying jobs accounted for much of this prejudice. Ethnocentricism and racism exhibited by the earlier settlers toward the Italian immigrants, who appeared somewhat different than themselves, were also major factors – this being especially true in the racially stratified southern states.”

Exactly.

First the Scots and Irish were the “undesirables,” reflecting their largely lower-class status within the broader British society. A couple of generations later, it was freed slaves. Another generation or two, and it was Italians and Poles (and generally all Eastern Europeans). Today, it’s Hispanics.

There’s always *some* group or two that gets demogogued as a problem for broader American society. The Scots and Irish got dissed because they were poor, laboring sorts. The freed slaves because they were black. Italians and Poles because of their funny food, weird languages and that Papist religion of theirs. And Hispanics today? Well, hell, they’s all ILLEGAL. Even the ones what was BORN here, right?

Our conservative friends and associates can shout all they want about being in favor of *legal* immigration. However, I will *never* believe them unless and until they start talking about common-sense methods to identify who’s here legally and who isn’t, and unless and until they stop presuming that anyone with a Hispanic surname needs to be pulled over and have his or her papers checked.

• Link
• Report this comment

Romney can’t win without minority support.

• Link
• Report this comment

So the Court says it’s up to the Feds to enforce immigration. Well, let’s. Politicians,including the President are almost wholly dependent on Big Business for their election and re-election funding. Business loves illegals because the’re cheap and can be paid in cash. Also, Business dosen’t have to worry about those pesky things like health insurance and Social Security. Lawmakers, never one to shy away from big money, look the other way while illegals keep pouring into our Country. The result of this is, from Business and politicians, power and profit above all and to hell with the American workers.

• Link
• Report this comment

“So the Court says it’s up to the Feds to enforce immigration”

Nope. It’s the Constitution that says that. The Court just affirmed it.

• Link
• Report this comment

Joseph,
They named a cookie after you…

• Link
• Report this comment

josef @ 11:46

Ain’t that the truth. Many like Ben want the “benefits” from the illegals but none of the “costs”………

• Link
• Report this comment

Doggone

I would go with you on the free aspect…same with the copy of the birth certificate…I feel the same way about the vaccination-dental-vision document required for school registration…

• Link
• Report this comment

“Many like Ben want the “benefits” from the illegals ”

As long as we’re making stuff up, why don’t you tell the group which benefits it is that I’m enjoying and when I said I’d be unable/unwilling to forego said “benefits”?

Thanks in advance.

• Link
• Report this comment

B. Shockley — “LMAO!!! You libs are doing the Snoopy Happy Dance over a SCOTUS decision that guarantees illegal immigration will continue unabated!”

No, we’re doing the Snoopy Happy Dance over a SCOTUS decision that overturned a poorly-written and poorly-conceived idea.

Again, do try to find a liberal poster here who has advocated *for* illegal immigration.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Care to name, specifically, a blogger here who’s said they support illegal immigration?”

LMAO!!! You libs are doing the Snoopy Happy Dance over a SCOTUS decision that guarantees illegal immigration will continue unabated!”

Ben, Ben, Ben…. are you going for a record to see how many words you can post to avoid saying “No, I can’t”?

• Link
• Report this comment

I ♥ illegal immigrants!

• Link
• Report this comment

B. Shockley — “If you do figure I’m a supporter I guess you aren’t too bright.”

And if you think we’re in support of illegal immigration, then YOU aren’t too bright.

• Link
• Report this comment

The good news in all of this is that Obama still loses in November.

• Link
• Report this comment

“answer”

• Link
• Report this comment

Ben,
I am doing your “happy dance” because there will not be undue harassment of a fellow human being. Now that this decision has been made, let’s think of constructive ways to solve the problem. You will never get them all out of the country and you shouldn’t. Give them a clear path to citizenship while remaining in the country is the most viable way. Once they have completed that path, welcome them as fellow, law abiding, voting citizens…but it’s the voting part you don’t like, isn’t it?

• Link
• Report this comment

For Carlosgvv
______________________________
http://www.newstaco.com/2011/12/29/immigrants-contribute-billions-into-social-security-medicare/

• Link
• Report this comment

“Free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty, free at last.”

• Link
• Report this comment

Ben Shockley -”If you do figure I’m a supporter I guess you aren’t too bright.”

Must have been my mistake. I thought you were railing against the costs incurred in the ER by people who can’t afford to pay for service. Since the majority of the costs come from the uninsured, and obamacare was designed to eliminate that problem, I could only surmise that you must be supporter. My bad. I do wonder however, why you think that the cost of ER service should be borne by those that are responsible and actually carry coverage?

• Link
• Report this comment

“Since the majority of the costs come from the uninsured, and obamacare was designed to eliminate that problem, I could only surmise that you must be supporter”

This is what happens when people incapable of logic and reason give it a try.

• Link
• Report this comment

A wonderful commercial you libs are sure to hate…

http://www.myfreedompost.com/2012/06/dennys-supports-2nd-amendment-and.html

• Link
• Report this comment

B. Shockley — “Then why don’t you tell us what you think ought to be done to stop it. Thanks in advance.”

Already posted it twice here in the last two weeks. Catch up to the the rest of the class.

You’re welcome.

• Link
• Report this comment

BTW, the next time your Driver’s License is renewed in Georgia (after July 1), you are going to have to produce documentation that wasn’t previously required, birth certificate or passport and proof of address. Go to http://www.dds.ga.gov for details.

• Link
• Report this comment

Bro

A face palm for you know who would be much appreciated………

“Muchas gracias”

• Link
• Report this comment

Illegal Mexican Immigrants Say…

Until they get stopped for jaywalking… lol…

• Link
• Report this comment

Is Scalia related to Mussolini?

• Link
• Report this comment

My preliminary read of the Arizona ruling is that I think it about right. Arizona, as a sovereign entity, may empower its police to inquire whether one is a citizen. That inquiry has relevance if in connection with investigation of a crime, as it directly affects how/whether one qualifies for bail. As to the three sections struck down – criminalizing applying for a job (gee, that sounds like ghetto politics), punishing failure to carry papers, warrantless arrests for deportable offenses – the first two are unworthy laws. I could see an argument in support of the third, but in a world where a warrant can be obtained by telephone, that is not insuperable when the crime supports the warrant.

• Link
• Report this comment

Doggone/GA:

Becuase of the utter hatred of the 2nd amendment…

• Link
• Report this comment

Ben Shockley

June 25th, 2012
11:56 am

If you are really 50 years old, then you have witnessed at least 50 years of your “south of the border invasion”…IF, you had opened your eyes. As far as I can see, they are here to stay, so what do you suggest we do about the situation?

• Link
• Report this comment

“As far as I can see, they are here to stay, so what do you suggest we do about the situation?”

If we cut off the freebies and make it impossible for them to find work, they’ll find their own way back, just like they found their own way here.

• Link
• Report this comment

Ben Shockley – “I know that paying your own way is a radical concept to you libs, but give it a try.”

Can’t speak for the libs, but I’ve been fully covered since retiring in 2008. Prior to that, My employer provided full coverage for me. I wasn’t taking a stance either way.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Like I already said (try to pay attention) you libs are celebrating defeat of all attempts to curb illegal immigration. To then assert that you really are opposed to illegal immigration is either disinguous or down right stupid, no matter how you try to spin it.”

Preach it!

• Link
• Report this comment

A face palm for you know who would be much appreciated………

……………………………………..________……………………
………………………………,.-‘”……………….“~.,………………
………………………..,.-”……………………………..“-.,…………
…………………….,/………………………………………..”:,……..
…………………,?………………………………………………\,…..
………………./…………………………………………………..,}….
……………../………………………………………………,:`^`..}….
……………/……………………………………………,:”………/…..
…………..?…..__…………………………………..:`………../…..
…………./__.(…..“~-,_…………………………,:`………./……..
………../(_….”~,_……..“~,_………………..,:`…….._/………..
……….{.._$;_……”=,_…….“-,_…….,.-~-,},.~”;/….}………..
………..((…..*~_…….”=-._……“;,,./`…./”…………../…………
…,,,___.\`~,……“~.,………………..`…..}…………../………….
…………(….`=-,,…….`……………………(……;_,,-”……………
…………/.`~,……`-………………………….\……/\……………….
………….\`~.*-,……………………………….|,./…..\,__………..
,,_……….}.>-._\……………………………..|…………..`=~-,….
…..`=~-,_\_……`\,……………………………\……………………
……………….`=~-,,.\,………………………….\…………………..
…………………………..`:,,………………………`\…………..__..
……………………………….`=-,……………….,%`>–==“…….
…………………………………._\……….._,-%…….`\……………
……………………………..,<`.._|_,-&“…………….`\…………..

• Link
• Report this comment

‘“Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is a victory for the rule of law. It is also a victory for the 10th Amendment and all Americans who believe in the inherent right and responsibility of states to defend their citizens,” Gov. Brewer said in a statement. “After more than two years of legal challenges, the heart of SB 1070 can now be implemented in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.”’ – Jan Brewer.

Wow…

• Link
• Report this comment

When 25 illegal aliens with 8 automobiles move into 3 bedroom house next door to Jay, he may view this issue from a different perspective. The above scenario has happened to thousands of Dalton’s residents – the result of the decision of a half dozen Carpet executives, who knew that
they would not be held accountable.

• Link
• Report this comment

Everyone has an opinion.

Facts are like gravity.

More US citizens have been killed by illegal immigrants than we have lost in our MidEast wars-

interesting- blood on the hands of anyone or just a little fact that should be period under our Code Pink pillow and forgotten?

• Link
• Report this comment

B. Shockley — “Like I already said (try to pay attention) you libs are celebrating defeat of all attempts to curb illegal immigration.”

Like I said, you’re full of it. No liberal poster here has said or done any such thing.

“To then assert that you really are opposed to illegal immigration is either disinguous or down right stupid, no matter how you try to spin it.”

Nope. It’s a fact, but I can understand how someone like you would have a problem grasping it. Once again, catch up to the rest of the class, Champ.

http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2012/06/15/obama-offers-temporary-reprieve-to-young-illegal-immigrants/?cp=10#comment-984295

You can get started on that, and then, if you can act like an adult and not like a puppy that still soils the floor, we can talk about more advanced issues and where I stand on them. But I will say it once again — you are just plain *wrong* about liberals being in favor of illegal immigration.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Kind of like when they say people who are against abortion should adopt.”

Now that would be a novel idea…

That one’s actually TOO easy to play here. I can remember a coupla times when the antichoicers have come to play, and I’ve asked for a show of hands as to how many have actually adopted anyone like, oh, Mrs. sfd and I (both devoutly pro-reproductive freedom our entire adult lives) have done.

You can hear a pin drop.

I don’t even bother any more. It’s the blog equivalent of an open net goal.

• Link
• Report this comment

On another subject, I spent some time this weekend researching the possible grounds the gay community might have for so hating former president Reagan that they would take pictures of themselves flipping birds at his portraits in the WH – because (frankly) it mystified me. He was not a saint, but I really believe he was not a bad man (compared to some other presisents who have held office). Here is what I found and my conclusion:

1) First and foremost, AIDS was being spread at an alarming rate largely because of ill-advised sexual activity (multiple encounters with various partners and without protection) and drug use (and subsequent tainting of the blood supply) – and NOT because of anything Reagan did or did not do.

2) Secondly, the man who discovered the cause of AIDS is on record as saying that a person with a healthy immune system could likely fight off infection many times before finally being infected. He has further stated that the reason AIDS has been so bad in Africa is because many people there, due to malnutrition and improper hygiene, have compromised immune systems. Thus the chances of being infected rise dramatically with frequent sexual encounters and a poor immune system. Gay men in NYC in the 60s, packed in almost like sardines (as described by gays recollecting the practice in a PBS documentary), were having sex in unlit and unsanitary meats trucks – if that can be taken as an indication of the disregard some gays had for safeguarding their own health two decades later.

3) Thirdly, the cause of the virus was not discovered until 1986 and and a definitive understanding of it did not begin to emerge until 2 to 3 years after it was identified as a distinct pathology in 1981, and that there were a lot of open questions about the disease the first several years after it was discovered. Indeed, the names used intially to identify the virus (such as GRID, Gay-Related Immune Deficiency) in the first year or so were associated with homosexuality. Scientists investigating AIDS in the early 80s strongly suspected its transmission was tied to sexual contact or contaminated blood, but there was not definitive proof that these were the only means of transmission. Besides saying he had been “cut off” from discussion and statements about AIDS for “reasons of intra-department politics that I can still not understand fully”, here are some other things the former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop has written:

“There were two reasons why it took a while for public health authorities to get a handle on AIDS in the beginning. One was the relatively few trained clinicians and researchers familiar with these rare diseases that were cropping up in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New York. The second reason was that the first patients with those conditions were homosexual men, most of whom patronized physicians and clinics that were more understanding of the so-called “gay lifestyle.” In making that choice, these men effectively placed themselves outside mainstream clinical medicine and, therefore, they were more difficult to know, to reach, and to help.”

“In spite of charges of “foot-dragging” we learned as much about AIDS in 6 years as we learned about polio in 40 years. Although we acknowledged that there was much we didn’t know about AIDS we had made extraordinary progress in our understanding of the syndrome…Above all we were concerned about how the disease is transmitted. We learned that although the virus had been identified in several body fluids, it seemed to be transmitted only through blood and semen. Researchers were very cautious. For example, Tony Fauci, Director of AIDS Research at NIH, insisted we check out any study that didn’t seem to rule out spread of AIDS by casual contact. But gradually a convincing body of research led us to some important conclusions. It was clear that in spite of all kinds of unsubstantiated claims about mosquitoes and toilet seats, AIDS could be transmitted in only four ways: 1) through sexual contact, 2) through blood contact associated with IV drug use, 3) through pregnancy or delivery contact between an AIDS-infected mother and her infant, and 4) through transfused blood. The most important thing we knew was the deadliest news: if you had AIDS, your chances of surviving the next two or three years were not very good, and the chances of surviving any longer than that almost nil.”

4) Fourthly, while Koop may have been prevented from making statements about AIDS, it is clear that Margaret Heckler, Secretary of Health and Human Services was under no such restriction. Indeed, in 1983, she declared AIDS her department’s “number one priority.” And the CDC was certainly working diligently on the problem. In fact, AIDS funding skyrocketed in the 1980s, almost doubling each year from 1983 – when the media started blaring headlines – from $44 million to $103 million, $205 million, $508 million, $922 million, and then $1.6 billion in 1988 – all through bills Reagan signed.

5) Fifthy, Canada was likewise experiencing an AIDS epidemic around the same time (there were an estimated 30,000 infections by 1987, primarily arising from men having sex with men – see http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/ccdr-rmtc/06vol32/dr3215a-eng.php). But as far as I know, no one has villified or demonized the former Canadian Prime Ministers Pierre Trudeau or Brian Mulroney for their percieved lack of activity. Rather, agencies like the Red Cross were blamed for their mistakes with the blood supply.

6) Sixthly, Reagan did not hate homosexuals. He had worked with many of them throughout his Hollywood career and was a good friend of Rock Hudson. In 1978, he opposed a ballot measure that would have barred homosexual teachers from public schools, saying: “Whatever it is, homosexuality was not a contagious disease, like the measles,” and that “Prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual’s sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child’s teachers do not really influence this.” He apparently did imagine that AIDS might possibly be a plague from God (as have many people who believe in the Bible, just as they have imagined earthquakes are judgements from God – but compare that notion to what Jesus says in Luke 13:1-5), but that didn’t mean he thought gays should just suffer and die (despite CBS’s miniseries putting the words “those who live in sin shall die in sin” into his mouth). People forget that Reagan, with some reservations, signed the Therapeutic Abortion Act of California in 1967.

In view of all of this, then, I would argue that there is little reason for the gay community to hate and demonize Reagan for the many deaths that resulted from AIDS in the 80s. Fault I suppose may be assigned to him (if he, rather than the men he freely delegated things to, was indeed responsibile) for holding back Koop (though if that was his doing, I don’t know why Heckler was allowed to speak about the virus) and not himself speaking out about it before 1985. But I don’t see how those “faults”, if averted, would have done much to change the course of things. Medical professionals were not going to recommend the use of condoms and abstinence until they were certain how the virus was transmitted. And studies since then have shown that proper condom use is often disregarded as a means of preventing AIDS or pregnancy. The earliest their use might have been recommended was maybe 1984 (my guess). But even if all of these things had been done, it would not have saved that many lives since there was at that time no medical treatment for the disease and having it was basically a death sentence. Gays have admitted suspecting at this time that the virus was somehow connected to their sexual activity and that it was prudent to use condoms, but many persisted in unprotected sexual activity nonetheless (instead of waiting things out about to see what the medical community could discover).

Gays demonize Reagan because they think that had he given the same amount of attention to AIDS and expended the same amount of energy as he did to dismantling the Berlin Wall, thousands of lives would have been saved. From the above cited evidence, I simply don’t know how one can make that argument – as if he could have greatly expedited the work the medical community was doing. More than money, research like that requires considerable and specific knowledge and skills, which were not all that extensive at the time (and not acquired overnight). I mean, look how much money has been given for cancer research and STILL they do not have a cure after all of these years. I therefore suppose it is a desire to blame others for the misfortune that has befallen you because of your actions (which we all do or have done, by the way) that explains the animus towards Reagan. And I would challenge those who hate Reagan for his perceived monstrosity in this matter to prove me wrong (I don’t HAVE to cling to the idea that Reagan was a decent man – the truth is the truth).

• Link
• Report this comment

Ben Shockley

June 25th, 2012
12:04 pm
Spoken like a true parrot. How do you suggest we do that?

• Link
• Report this comment

Anyone else here smile whenever our Paul is lumped in with “you libs”?

Smile hell… I downright burst into sheer laughter.

• Link
• Report this comment

“When did that court packing happen?”

The practice started with FDR, I think.

• Link
• Report this comment

I’ve yet to hear of a Republican that won’t endorse Romney….

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qwsx0VrQ5jc

• Link
• Report this comment

Brosephus

“Vortex alert!!! Vortex alert!!! Vortex alert!!! Vortex alert!!!”

Thanks for the warning, friend, but I was under the impression Ben Shockley is unable to carry on a real discussion exploring different points of view and all he wants to do is that which he is capable of doing, namely, trade quips, so I was in an obliging mood.

• Link
• Report this comment

WHAT!!?? PAUL ISN”T A LIBERAL COMMIE PINKO???

• Link
• Report this comment

getalife:

And liberals are a disgrace to Americans…

• Link
• Report this comment

I ♣ bears for their arms.

• Link
• Report this comment

getalife

June 25th, 2012
12:09 pm
Hmmmm…maybe there IS a third kind of Republican…but I bet it’s just Paul and one or two others…

• Link
• Report this comment

josef

It’s the last Monday of an even numbered month in an even numbered year. Since it isn’t a full moon tonight, I’m not quite sure whether Paul is a Plantation Liberal today or not.

• Link
• Report this comment

Joseph

June 25th, 2012
12:11 pm

And there’s your sign…

• Link
• Report this comment

Damage was done to many lives on this witch hunt. Alabama which decides to lead the nation in such things as this ,as opposed to quality of life, like a sick perverted mind searching out misery and not resting till all is in the mud with them, this intervention by the neighbor while they bully the weak must be torture.

I really don’t see how any Latino can vote for a Republican. Any family member of any American family, which some day may have a member in harms way, can vote for a party so cruel and set to destroy and bully anyone it decides is weak and helpless. There is such a clear choice and the court just backed that choice by saying this is not an American way of conduct.

• Link
• Report this comment

‘In that scenario all you have to do is call the police and say they are disturbing the piece. ‘

Now that’s good for a chuckle on many levels…

• Link
• Report this comment

In that scenario all you have to do is call the police and say they are disturbing the piece(sic). They must check their legal status now thanks to the Supreme’s for upholding that provision of SB1070..

You also face the potential of being charged with filing a false police report if they are NOT actually disturbing the peace. Filing a false report carries far more punishment in the court system than being in this country without documentation. You’re talking criminal charges vs civil charges there.

• Link
• Report this comment

“I’ve yet to hear of a Republican that won’t endorse Romney….”

Ron Paul left the Republican Party? When?

• Link
• Report this comment

“The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is”

And that is what I said. The Court has affirmed what the Consitution says.

• Link
• Report this comment

josef

Ever since Bosch left and took the calendar with him, I get so confused.

But we still have the EOIs, don’t we?

• Link
• Report this comment

Jm @ 12:17

As opposed to those conservative hypocrites, right?

• Link
• Report this comment

Doggone/GA – 12:17

That is NOT what you said. Another Court, composed of nine equally qualified lawyers, might give an entirely different ruling.

• Link
• Report this comment

@Joseph
Yeah, I live in the community that was once Dalton, but I won’t be here much longer. My hometown was bartered away, unilaterally, by the principals of the carpet mills, in exchange for cheap labor.
The irony of it all is that in the end the carpet mills, in a reverse of fortune, will be the ones under duress, in a town contolled politically by the cheap labor by they recruited.

• Link
• Report this comment

I don’t know why everyone assumes all the undocumented workers are Mexican. Most of the ones that are in my area are Guatemalan’s.

• Link
• Report this comment

josef @ 12:17

Now, the test will be if Doom calls that poster racist for saying that in the same manner that he blasted me.

————-

Paul

EOI is like kudzu, we never die!!!

• Link
• Report this comment

Rickster

Roberts stated sometime back that Kagen nor Thomas need to remove themselves…………

Why no mention of Thomas?
hmmmmmmm

• Link
• Report this comment

All those folks who own stock in those private prison companies that ALECed these laws through the AZ, AL, and GA legislatures are really gonna be disappointed in this ruling.

• Link
• Report this comment

It answers the question about whether or not states have constitutional authority to take charge of crafting and enforcing immigration laws. The Supremes ruled that the federal government has sole responsibility for immigration laws. The unanswered question is can a president and his DoJ determine which federal laws to enforce and which ones to ignore? If a president assumes that power it usurps the role of the legislative branch. I’m not sure what recourse the Congress has in circumstances whereby a sitting president decides not to enforce certain duly passed existing laws but doing so certainly undermines the United States Congress.

• Link
• Report this comment

Many places do NOT border Mexico, so they have no idea what Arizona goes through. This is sort of equivilent of a 98% white town in a 90+ % white state offering its opinion on solving racial problems; they are talking about something they know nothing about and do not have experience with. Arizona, as opposed to some Northern State, gets overrun and Jay, even you know the Feds have done a CRAPPY job! I realize you gotta be decent, but exactly what are these folks supposed to do????? If our folks take off to Mexico (read about) their laws are much more strictly enforced.

• Link
• Report this comment

Let the vote buying focus group pandering continue…

• Link
• Report this comment

do their job of protecting their citizens from illegals

if you actually think this crap-ass AZ law was about protecting *anything* besides the careers of the likes of Jan Brewer and Sheriff Joe Ara##hole, I’ve a nice bridge linking an outer borough to sell you.

• Link
• Report this comment

“That is NOT what you said. Another Court, composed of nine equally qualified lawyers, might give an entirely different ruling”

Maybe, but THIS court did what I said: affirmed what the Consitution says

• Link
• Report this comment

Mitt reminds me of the worst of the GOP’s candidates – Tricky Dick, Saint Ronnie and George of the Bungle.

And outdated old white guy on his “Every Millionaire Counts Tour” completely out of touch with the reality of working class families.

And you faux conservatives are gonna pretend – even to yourselves – that he is a great “severely conservative” (LOL!) candidate with your best interests at heart. Instead of wall Streets.

After watching him closely for over a year now, I can safely say that he stinks to high heaven. John McCain was an infinitely better human being and candidate. And you all know that.

And for these five words alone, he may be the worst GOP candidate in a generation:

Corporations are people, my friend.

• Link
• Report this comment

RB from Gwinnett – “Let the vote buying focus group pandering continue…”

It has to, without it, we’d have no electoral process at all.

• Link
• Report this comment

Recon

“The unanswered question is can a president and his DoJ determine which federal laws to enforce and which ones to ignore?”

The Court did in fact decide that. It appears the difficulty in understanding is what the Right calls ‘choose with laws to ignore” the Court calls “discretion in the enforcement of… law”

• Link
• Report this comment

Steve USA — “Preach it!”

Far from preaching it, he seems to have shut his yap since I posted some direct refutation for him.

• Link
• Report this comment

Krugman raises the red flag again:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/25/opinion/krugman-the-great-abdication.html?_r=1&hp

• Link
• Report this comment

josef

I don’t know whether he delegated authority or not.

—————

Towncrier

Is it an impeachable offense to prioritize enforcement based on available assets?

• Link
• Report this comment

Our President wants congress to do immigration reform.

That will not happen unless he is reelected with a new house.

• Link
• Report this comment

Steve – You’re right, only 62% are Mexican, although probably 80-85% Latino. While I’m hoping I’ll like the Obamacare ruling a litle more, that’s really not the point. Basically 2 people (5-3 decision) cetermine the law for 300+ million. I think that sounds more like a monarchy-oligarchy than a democracy. And the only recourse is constitutional amendment, a very difficult process. Or wait for a different SCOTUS. Nowadays it’s all judicial activism.
Obamacare is a great example. The elected representatives enact legislature that today’s polls indicate is against the will of about 2/3 of the people, and then nine appointed justices ultimately determine what is law.

• Link
• Report this comment

What other federal laws are we the people willing to let the current administration (R or D) ignore? Can the next R administration ignore tax collection from millionaire? Ignore equal rights law enforcement? Stop letting women vote? Where is the limit? Feds won’t enforce and won’t let states enforce sounds like a recipe for disaster. Feds were never supposed to have that much power over states for good reason.

• Link
• Report this comment

I didn’t welcome the 8 illegal immigrants into my house; I welcomed them to the top of my house where they replaced the roof. I understood at the time that 30% of all roofers in Atlanta were illegal; although the contractor was legal. Of course that was during the housing boom, when we needed the labor.
I still don’t understand the local police checking documentation. There are many US territories and possessions which provide legal documentation, but I doubt that the local police will have the training to separate the legals from the illegals.

• Link
• Report this comment

stands for decibels

June 25th, 2012
12:04 pm
Paul, so you libs

Anyone else here smile whenever our Paul is lumped in with “you libs”?
____________________________________________________
More like shake my head and do the faceplamie thing.

• Link
• Report this comment

Only one mention of Montana this entire thread. Did everyone miss that one? Corporations can spend unlimited amounts in campaigns, even if state law would seek to forbid that.

• Link
• Report this comment

illegal immigration follows the Law of Supply and Demand; eliminate or decrease the demand and the supply will decrease accordingly.

Still trying to decide if Romney reminds me more of the snake-oil salesman in “The Outlaw Josey Wales” or Reverend Ike.

Both promised a sip of their elixer would cure anything.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Is it an impeachable offense to prioritize enforcement based on available assets?”

I would say not if that is truly the motivation, and not simply a smokescreen. But I have always felt it is a dereliction of duty to, say, not prosecute a crime when you should and are able to (like might have happened in the south some decades past). That is perhaps one of the potential problems I see for Holder and the DOJ with respect to the FaF “operation”: since they prosecuted “gunwalking” carried out with the Wide Receiver “operation”, they have no excuse for taking immediate action over that activity in FaF if they truly knew about it.

• Link
• Report this comment

If Sheriff Arpaio is such a great sheriff, why does his county have a crime problem?

• Link
• Report this comment

Bookman just had a “warm and fuzzy feeling” running down his leg like the idiot on MSNBC did when hears Obama speak. Only difference is that this time JB PP’d on himself.

• Link
• Report this comment

Thomas

June 25th, 2012
12:06 pm
…period under our Code Pink pillow…
______________________________________
If you have to use a “Code Pink pillow” for your period, you may want to see a doctor.

Just sayin’…

• Link
• Report this comment

BOTH

I am considering sponsoring you for membership in the EOI. Of course, you have to have the assent of Paul and Brosephus…the CEO and Membership Chair respectively…

• Link
• Report this comment

IMAM

On the update…d*mn, looks like Scalia’s been reading Judah P!

• Link
• Report this comment

“Like I already said (try to pay attention) you libs are celebrating defeat of all attempts to curb illegal immigration. To then assert that you really are opposed to illegal immigration is either disinguous or down right stupid, no matter how you try to spin it.”

Much as all you folks who oppose judicial amputation of hands have to be in favor of theft.
I don’t care how you spin it.

• Link
• Report this comment

Free to think for yourself, not be a kool aid drinking A-clown Rep. tool

• Link
• Report this comment

Paul, always glad to help! One of these days some may get it right….very few.

• Link
• Report this comment

Did I miss all the GOP bitchin’ when the DOJ used discretion not to prosecute members of the previous administration?

MMMMM

• Link
• Report this comment

The bottom line here is that THE most significant portion of this law was upheld 8 to 0. Sure, the court left the door open for future challenges, but the overall constitutionality of “Show me your papers” is no longer in question. It was this provision that had liberal’s panties in a wad.

• Link
• Report this comment

Well does this mean illegal immigrants can vote? NO? Then what exactly have liberals accomplished except to cost taxpayers millions of dollars.?

• Link
• Report this comment

Peadawg: No, not as such. But it’s about a Montana law that would limit corporate money in state elections, overturned today by the SCOTUS. I would bet there is something on scotus blog.

• Link
• Report this comment

@Jay,
Ain’t sure….maybe there were OTHER qualities lacking, I don’t know. But, what do folks do? Nobody will answer that part when the Feds are doing the worst job in history! Arizona is a border state. People who are not, or pretty close even are uniquely qualified to need extra attention……

• Link
• Report this comment

“, if Arizona was so supportive of this law, why did voters there recall the chief architect of the legislation, Russell Pearce? It was a heavily Republican district, no Arizona legislator had ever been recalled before, Pearce outspent his novice opponent 3-1 and was also endorsed by Arpaio.”

That triggered something and upon review, it is that Mesa is 34% LDS, many of those who voted against Pearce thought he had character shortcomings and local LDS (Washington Post characterized it as an effort by the Mormon church, which is, I think inaccurate) thought Pearce’s views conflicted with what they viewed as their teachings on helping one’s fellow man, as well as hurting their missionary efforts in Central and South America.

• Link
• Report this comment

@Towncrier 12:06 — relevance?

• Link
• Report this comment

Recon

“The question is, should any administration have that power to act alone or should changing or modifying federal law be by Congressional authority in conjunction with that of the administrative branch.”

Court decided that.

• Link
• Report this comment

Here’s what should be learned from the ruling.

It’s not surprising most of the AZ law was struck down. This is one of few mutual interests where the federal government is needed for consistency.

Under no circumstance or liberal mind swing should one believe what is taking place now is acceptable. If the Federal Government was upholding existing law there would not have been a need for AZ to attempt a separate law.

The idea as Jay puts forward that the ruling suggests Obama’s fiat on the mini-dream act is justifiable and constitutional is ridiculous. Such thoughts are wishful thinking to satisfy a political idiology and to defend Obama. It’s nonsense. It’s really amazing.

There are several challenges with solving illegal immigration. At the top is the federal government’s failure to uphold existing law. The law must be upheld, then decide what to do with the illgegals that are here.

• Link
• Report this comment

Paul, in some ways I find him more reprehensible that the cast of idiots that he beat out for the nomination. At least with Perry, Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich and Santorum, one knew that these people were mental midgets, inveterate liars and complete sell outs.

Willard is a corporate shill of the worst kind. The man simply has no backbone. Or guts. He is the only politician that I have ever seen that has drastically changed his mind so many times on so many issues that he makes John Kerry look like the Rock of Gibraltar.

He is the very antithesis of moral courage and will ANYTHING to get votes.

And that is why he is the neocon candidate this time around…

• Link
• Report this comment

Towncrier: Honestly I didn’t think that much about the age limit exactly, seems like it was somewhat arbitrary. Perhaps the thinking is if you’re over 30 you have had enough time to get your own citizenship?

• Link
• Report this comment

Steve – USA — “Just going for lunch and a visit to the river, I read your previous post and you had some valid points.”

Thank you; that’s kind of you to say. Perhaps we can discuss some of those points later.

“I might stop by the corner gas station and see some of my Guatemalan buddies and tell them you have their back. I have gotten to be friends with some of the the day workers and I love it when they call me “Mr. Steve”.

My wife is Hispanic (born here), and I just don’t like the notion that we can solve the immigration issue by slagging on poor, hardworking immigrants. I think that someone who’s willing to slog through the desert on foot for three days, avoiding snakes and gila monsters JUST so he can lay masonry or hang doorframes is the kind of worker we WANT in America. So instead of dissing illegosos, let’s figure out some common-sense solutions that don’t involve automatically picking on brown folk.

Hopefully, we can find some common ground there. And tell those guys I said “si, se puede.”

• Link
• Report this comment

“But it’s about a Montana law that would limit corporate money in state elections, overturned today by the SCOTUS.”

Oh, ok. Meh…I’ve said before that I don’t have a problem w/ how much money is donated to candidates.

• Link
• Report this comment

Paul,

Once again I don’t see where the court made that decision. That was not the issue before them. The issue of preventing a sitting president from undermining Congressional authority rests within the Congress and with the American people.

• Link
• Report this comment

Recon

I addressed your question from the viewpoint that what I read as “can the Executive branch decide which laws to enforce” as being the same as what the Court referred to as ‘discretion’ in this case.

• Link
• Report this comment

Williebkind — “Whose policy was that? It is dated 2011.”

It’s right there on the first page; John Morton, a Director at ICE. And I TOLD you that the President was merely formalizing what had already been ICE policy for at least a year.

“Did he take the oath to uphold ALL the laws of the land? Or is Obama just different?”

You pretty clearly didn’t read the document. Go back and read it.

The Director is pretty clearly saying ‘we can’t catch every undocumented immigrant, so here’s how we’re going to prioritize our efforts.’ Nothing in there says that undocumented immigrants are going to get any kind of pass — just that they’re going to focus their scarce resources on certain specific kinds of undocumented immigrants.

• Link
• Report this comment

“I don’t think it really matters, given than no one’s getting immunity. I think they’re saying that they’re going to focus enforcement efforts on older illegosos.”

It obviously matters, since the act is directed at children of illegal immigrants and the upper age limit could hardly have been, say, 50. Giving the benefit of the doubt to Obama, it might be because that would cover those who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. Otherwise, I have no idea.

• Link
• Report this comment

Towncrier — “It obviously matters, since the act is directed at children of illegal immigrants and the upper age limit could hardly have been, say, 50. Giving the benefit of the doubt to Obama, it might be because that would cover those who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. Otherwise, I have no idea.”

Again, I still don’t think it matters, given that no one’s getting immunity. Look at the last paragraph of the document I posted:

“As there is no right to the favorable exercise ofdiscretion by the agency, nothing in this memorandum should be construed to prohibit the apprehension, detention, or removal of any alien unlawfully in the United States or to limit the legal authority of ICE or any of its personnel to enforce federal immigration law. Similarly, this memorandum, which may be modified, superseded, or rescinded at any time without notice, is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any party in any administrative, civil, or criminal matter.”

They’re not *actively seeking* illegosos under 30, but they’re clearly saying that nothing in the policy expressly *prevents* them from catching and deporting same.

• Link
• Report this comment

Towncrier — “I would agree completely except that I don’t think many conservatives like myself have it in mind to be “picking on brown folk” in seeking to uphold immigration laws – even though that may be the perception of many (yet even kids when rightly disciplined by their parents may feel put upon or disliked).”

I respectfully disagree.

My wife is Hispanic, and I can’t TELL you how many times one or both of us have been asked — albeit politely — if she’s here legally, how she came to be in America, etc. Several years ago, she almost got caught up in a sweep at a Hispanic grocery; it was the fact that she was an HR professional and knew immigration law (and that she speaks English with no Spanish accent) that kept her from getting hauled off.

While conservatives like you may not be *overtly* picking on brown folk in this regard, I can tell you that many, many conservatives *do* do it. Whether it’s intentional or not, I can’t say.

• Link
• Report this comment

Towncrier – Illegal aliens cannot enlist in the US military. Legal skilled immigrants and permanent residents can enlist, but not illegals.

• Link
• Report this comment

“While conservatives like you may not be *overtly* picking on brown folk in this regard, I can tell you that many, many conservatives *do* do it. Whether it’s intentional or not, I can’t say.”

I likewise have been married to a latina for a number of years. She has never had any issues like you mention that I know of. I guess the question I have for you is who was doing the asking and sweeping of which you speak? If it was just the police, I would say that one must not confuse their (at times obvious – and not just with respect to illegal immigration) prosecutorial zeal for conservative intent.

• Link
• Report this comment

“I will be coming back to that when I can read and digest it properly. I didn’t want you to think I was ignoring it.”

Cool, buddy.

• Link
• Report this comment

John Birch,

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3271/

• Link
• Report this comment

“Illegal aliens cannot enlist in the US military. Legal skilled immigrants and permanent residents can enlist, but not illegals.”

Without false papers, I should think not. But that does not seem to keep Obama and Romney from claiming the opposite.

• Link
• Report this comment

CRIER

Your latina wife…two questions, what does she look like and does she have a latino surname which she maintains in her documents?

The reason I ask, is that I have colleagues who are from such places as Argentina or Uruguay who are blonde, light skinned and with German, Slavic or Italian surnames who have not ever been questioned. I have others, some of whom have roots back centuries and who speak English with a Southern accent you could cut with a butter knife who “look” latino and who have latino surnames and who have been grilled repeatedly.

• Link
• Report this comment

Mexicans that can’t come here legally can sneak in and birth a baby and the baby is legal: something’s wrong with that.

• Link
• Report this comment

NORMAL

• Link
• Report this comment

“Mexicans that can’t come here legally can sneak in and birth a baby and the baby is legal: something’s wrong with that”

Only Mexicans? Funny, and all this time I thought ALL people born here were citizens. Learn something new every day. /snarc

• Link
• Report this comment

Doggone — “Only Mexicans? Funny, and all this time I thought ALL people born here were citizens. Learn something new every day. /snarc”

A-HENH.

• Link
• Report this comment

something’s wrong with that.

Take it up with the heroic men who drafted the most sacred document ever written – the Constitution of the United States of America…

Former President Jimmy Carter says the United States has abandoned its role as the world’s champion of human rights and cites the recent stories of targeted assassinations and drone attacks that have killed innocent civilians as “disturbing proof” of how the country has lost its “moral leadership.”

Citing everything from “cleared” detainees still being held at Guantanamo and the waterboarding of prisoners to “unwarranted wiretapping” and “mining of private communications,” Carter said U.S. laws and polices now violate the basic rights to privacy, freedom of expression, and the presumption of innocence.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/carter-us-human-rights/2012/06/25/id/443314

• Link
• Report this comment

There should be NONE of it overturned. Illegal invaders are NOT citizens and thus shouldn’t be covered under the Constitution. This is just another example of the fedgov’s encroachment on states’ rights.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Only Mexicans? Funny, and all this time I thought ALL people born here were citizens.”

Yes, and I think that at this point, the 14th Amendment needs clarification from the SCOTUS or to be modified with respect to children born of illegal immigrants. The SCOTUS has never explicitly ruled on this.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Mexicans that can’t come here legally can sneak in and birth a baby and the baby is legal: something’s wrong with that.”

Jack, you left out the part where after they come in and go into labor they enter hospitals through emergency and after giving birth not only is the baby a U.S. citizen but child and mother are both covered by Medicaid. That coverage pays the hospital bill as well as post natal care for the mother and pediatric care for the child. Quite a financial burden in states with high illegal immigrant populations.

• Link
• Report this comment

Crier

That’s an interesting point…and while the decision in Korematsu v the United States still stands, Justices Murphy’s and Jackson’s dissenting opinions make for the counterpoint and while the case did not hinge on Korematsu’s citizenship, which was not in question, the dissenting opinions do address the issue…

• Link
• Report this comment

but what “moral leadership” is he saying we “lost”?

What a stunningly foolish question. Reading is fundamental.

There is none so blind as he who will not see…

• Link
• Report this comment

Woodstock mike I just read that same politico article

Sure appears to be a significant victory for AZ in many ways

They will still be able to check immigration status of anyone stopped

• Link
• Report this comment

Sure appears to be a significant victory for AZ

Lil’ Ant-knee shore don’t think so.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77791.html

• Link
• Report this comment

Jm
“They will still be able to check immigration status of anyone stopped”
…….
and then what?

• Link
• Report this comment

MONTGOMERY, Alabama — The Southern Poverty Law Center re-launched a hotline today for people to report problems they have experienced as a result of Alabama’s immigration law.

The hotline has been operating since September, when parts of the original immigration law went into effect. But the SPLC said in a statement that recent changes to the law spurred it to remind people they can call the hotline at 800-982-1620 either to report problems or get information about changes lawmakers made to the law in the recent legislative session.

“State lawmakers have callously refused to address the humanitarian crisis created by Alabama’s anti-immigrant law,” Mary Bauer, legal director for the SPLC said in the statement. “As we continue our fight against this unconstitutional law, we want to know first-hand the suffering it is inflicting on people across the state.”

http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2012/06/southern_poverty_law_center_re.html

• Link
• Report this comment

More relating to Jay’s prior post:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/06/speed-up-american-workers-long-hours

• Link
• Report this comment

Frog

And if they’re herr illegally, detain them if they so desire and eventually turn them over to the Feds

• Link
• Report this comment

Tbs 12:19

I don’t know how one can be so flippant about something so simple

She had conflict on the first case but not the second? Go figure.

• Link
• Report this comment

WussyWillard/WhinyAnthony SHEETZ

• Link
• Report this comment

O.T. Interesting Pew research report showing Asians surpassing Latinos as the fastest growing immigration segment. I wonder how Democrats will pander to this group as they tend to be well educated, well employed and financially self sufficient.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18513331

• Link
• Report this comment

Tbs 2:07 yes I recall Roberts view. Probably a political decision because an important ruling with a missing 9th would not be viewed positively

On it’s face, kagan should definitely be out, and probably Thomas too

• Link
• Report this comment

Recon

Not sure. A good place for you to start checking would be to goggle for a breakdown and reason as to why Asian’s voted for Obama in 08.

just sayn

PS: are you ok when a Repub panders to a demographic? Whether you admit it or not, they do it just as much. It is about politics not D or R. Only difference is that each side is hard pressed to admit their candidate does it, while they cry about other side doing it.

• Link
• Report this comment

“TC, you sealed your fate on the race issue long ago on this forum. No wonder you take comments not directed at you, so personally. (Still advocating to get your hero Zimmerman out of the can? LOL!)”

The challenge I issued to you last Friday still stands, JV: I am either a racist like you say (strange that I would marry a Latina, though) or you are a liar who delights in making false accusations.

http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2012/06/22/t-splost-ballot-language-misleading/?cp=4#comment-989840

• Link
• Report this comment

Don’t know about y’all, but there’s only one SCOTUS decision that I’m concerned with right now: The (un)Constitutionality of using the Interstate Commerce Clause to force citizens to purchase a for-profit product. Unless this obvious misuse of the Commerce Clause is struck down, it will be “Anything Goes” moving forward. Based upon the Kelo vs. New London case, it’s obvious to me how the Lib justices feel about the matter.

• Link
• Report this comment

Special for Brothers JamVet and Normal–”Mr. President” by Shawn Phillips:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcXqyQ3_Rqo

• Link
• Report this comment

I’m confused here. If, as some of you assert, only people with legal residency or citizenship can get driver’s licenses, wouldn’t the existence of such a license be de facto proof of legal residence? How would giving Arizona police the power to determine legal residency after making a traffic stop make any difference here?

• Link
• Report this comment

“The article also mentioned that Asians typically affiliate with the Democrat party.”

I think that may be more political hope on the part of some rather than reality. I’ve been associated with many and haven’t found that to be the case.

• Link
• Report this comment

Recon @ 2:25

Pew Research begs to differ

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1209/racial-ethnic-voters-presidential-election

• Link
• Report this comment

TBS,

A lot of people obviously voted for Obama in 08. I don’t think there’s a guarantee they all will once again in November 012. I think the 010 reality gives some credence to that possibility.

• Link
• Report this comment

TBS@2:26 they can differ. @2:29….absolutely.

• Link
• Report this comment

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (Simpson-Mazzoli bill) was signed into law by Reagan in 1986. According to the wiki, it:

1) required employers to attest to their employees’ immigration status.
2) made it illegal to knowingly hire or recruit unauthorized immigrants.
3) granted amnesty to certain seasonal agricultural illegal immigrants.
4) granted amnesty to illegal immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and had resided there continuously.

I guess the next bill is going to have to be a lot more effective than this one. A collusion of law enforcement, businesses and politicians I think rendered this bill inert. We are going to have to start learning from history if we want to get anywhere.

• Link
• Report this comment

Recon @ 2:46

Agreed. House margin will be close to the same imo, however the Senate is very much in play. I could see Obama winning and the Dems still lose the Senate. Romney wins, Repubs certainly win the Senate imo

• Link
• Report this comment

“Is it me or have you noticed some of those who constantly reference the constitution have no idea what IS/IS NOT in it or how it is applied?”

Sounds like Obama does it not?

• Link
• Report this comment

[...] Supremes overturn much of Arizona immigration law (blogs.ajc.com) [...]

• Link
• Report this comment

You Democrats are in a tough situation here. You would like for folks to have increased wages, but you covet the illegals’ votes much more. When you increase the minimum wage, unemployment increases, particularly among the young. What is a liberal to do?

• Link
• Report this comment

Expect new laws aimed at encouraging self-deportation.

• Link
• Report this comment