Supreme Court restricts impact of Ga. immigration law

“The court did uphold, at least temporarily, one provision of the Arizona law that is also echoed in Georgia law. In both states, local and state law enforcement are empowered to run immigration checks on anybody whom they arrest or detain, even for minor traffic offenses.”

As long as they work WITH the feds on this, I don’t have a problem with this provision – which is why the SCOTUS said they would watch its implementation very closely.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay, EXACTLY what did Scalia say in his dissent that strikes you as being unconstitutional?

• Link
• Report this comment

Scalia…the new code word for “bought and paid for”…

• Link
• Report this comment

Scalia in no more partisan than Ginsberg…Jay’s just being “Italianist”…the only thing Scalia is guilty of is “judging while being of Italian descent”.

• Link
• Report this comment

And on the eighth post, ol’ Ty brings in the first unwarranted and unnecessary racial card.

I guess it’s true with “conservatives”…when you have nothing to add, say anything…

• Link
• Report this comment

“And on the eighth post, ol’ Ty brings in the first unwarranted and unnecessary racial card.”

check that, Normal…race was brought up by your “team” at 8:13…you’re welcome.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay’s just being “Italianist”…

“Conservative humor is what closes on Saturday night.”

–George S. Kaufman

• Link
• Report this comment

Yep – the legislature will probably have to whittle down the Georgia law in the next session.

Scalia however is a brilliant jurist and quite accurate in his assessment of the issue of State’s sovereignty.

• Link
• Report this comment

good one, Granny.

• Link
• Report this comment

“the only thing Scalia is guilty of is “judging while being of Italian descent”.”

riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight … the decision was tinged with his Italianness … which is why I guess it just totally went right by my Italianness

• Link
• Report this comment

“Scalia however is a brilliant jurist”

I’d laugh, but the reality is too tragic

• Link
• Report this comment

Adam – 8:22

All nine of them are “already there” and, in any decision, a minimun of five have powers all out of porportion to their numbers.

• Link
• Report this comment

“At a time when the court is already under suspicion of indulging in partisan politics. Scalia plays a dangerous and irresponsible game with judicial credibility.”

No Jay. That’s your take because you are a Statist.

What should be more alarming to you is how the Obama administration is behaving like a bunch of thugs or a vindictive woman. Their actions to pull Arizona police authority to assist ICE and setting up a hot line to Justice for reporting suspected illegal retention in enforcing the part of the law SCOTUS let stand is one of the most obvious retributions I can remember in politics.

You Moonbats continue to support and be proud of Obama who out of his mouth comes tones of needing to work together while every action he takes divides us. He can’t go soon enough.

• Link
• Report this comment

UsinUk,
your the “Clarence Thomas” of “Italianness”…in other words, you’re just an “Uncle Sal”.

• Link
• Report this comment

USinUK – read opinions often?

• Link
• Report this comment

“your the “Clarence Thomas” of “Italianness”…in other words, you’re just an “Uncle Sal”.”

first of all, it’s you’RE, not your

secondly, please point out the glaring “Italian” aspect of Scalia’s ruling that is at the root of Jay’s supposed anti-Italian opinion

• Link
• Report this comment

Tommy – can you be more specific?

• Link
• Report this comment

Ty,
What I said was unnecessary and unwarranted. USinUK’s post was warranted because it is most likely to be true.

• Link
• Report this comment

“first of all, it’s you’RE, not your”

I apologize for the mistake…now, please lighten up, I was only joking with you.

• Link
• Report this comment

Scalia plays politician. Jay displays faux one-sided outrage.

• Link
• Report this comment

stands – you should look up the word Statist before knee jerking. It is a legitimate noun that is neither slang nor slander.

• Link
• Report this comment

All nine of them are “already there” and, in any decision, a minimun of five have powers all out of porportion to their numbers.

Rubbing everyone’s face in it “haha I’m untouchable!” should be an impeachable offense.

Ok, maybe not, but it does show there is absolutely zero accountability even if the judge is being blatantly partisan, not even trying to keep up the appearance of being impartial.

• Link
• Report this comment

I hope the next president decides to stop prosecuting all drug users.

Who needs laws? The president can just decide.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Statist! Isn’t that one of those terms used by anarchists.”

I prefer Staticist … I like to rub balloons on people’s heads and make their hair stand on end … Mwahahahaha

• Link
• Report this comment

“Who needs laws? The president can just decide.”

so, I suppose it was okay when W decided to set aside the law that enabled funding of stem cell research.

or are you just selective in your poutrage?

• Link
• Report this comment

stat·ism (sttzm)
n.
The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy.
statist adj. & n.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

statist [ˈsteɪtɪst]
n
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) an advocate of statism
2. (Mathematics & Measurements / Statistics) a less common name for a statistician
3. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) Archaic a politician or statesman
adj
(Government, Politics & Diplomacy) of, characteristic of, advocating, or relating to statism
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

Wow that describes Jay and most on here oh so well!

• Link
• Report this comment

Scalia still has a ways to go to catch up to the most abysmal US Supreme Court Justice in history – Lewis Powell – but he sure is working hard on getting there.

Scalia is not a people, my friend.

He is a conservabot working for the corporate machine and against we the people…

To hell with democracy, long live the corporatocracy…

• Link
• Report this comment

Jamvet – word.

• Link
• Report this comment

““Who needs laws? The president can just decide.”

so, I suppose it was okay when W decided to set aside the law that enabled funding of stem cell research.

or are you just selective in your poutrage?”

Nope not ok. Have you not figured out that I’m not on one side yet, after all this time? Some people are so dense.

• Link
• Report this comment

Peadawg: You may want to get that fainting couch you kept talking about yesterday

I don’t remember making that reference

Anyway I was being hyperbolic on purpose there

• Link
• Report this comment

The problem with what Scalia wrote is 1) while states do have individual rights, they are part of the union, & it is the union which has international sovereign – not states 2) He is supposed to write an opinion on the Constitutionality of a law. If he disagrees, fine. But, the opinion is not supposed to be politically motiviated & not supposed to be nothing to do with the case before them.

• Link
• Report this comment

If we’re no longer a nation of laws, but only a nation of “men”, why bother writing laws anymore?

Let’s just accept a dictator as leader….

• Link
• Report this comment

why bother writing laws anymore….

yep, why bother to mandate peoples behavior.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Have you not figured out that I’m not on one side yet”

You’re as one sided as our other so-called “independent” on this blog – getalife.

• Link
• Report this comment

I don’t know about a dictator, but we do do have a GOP dick-tater running for President…

• Link
• Report this comment

“yep, why bother to mandate peoples behavior.”

well … unless they’re women … then evidently our VAGINAS require that we’re closely supervised

• Link
• Report this comment

We wouldn’t be in this mess if our elected leaders had enforced the law when this first began in earnest. Reagan started this whole cluster**** by admitting about 3M illegals and it has gone from bad to worse ever since. No one has had the balls to step up to the plate and uphold our standing laws regarding immigration. The laws are good laws and have worked for quite a long time to ensure that those who entered our country were free of an untainted past, had something to offer and would support themselves. It wasn’t perfect but so much better than what is going on now. Pandering to a special interest group for votes is the ultimate put down for our country. Every president since Reagan has done this and it makes you sick to see it….. as if votes are more important than our laws and protecting our citizens. We have our elected officials of both parties to thank for this. I just hope we survive it.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Anyway I was being hyperbolic on purpose there”

Oh of course you were.

• Link
• Report this comment

if i get stopped for speeding later today in glendale or peoria, or on i-10, can i sue if they don’t check my immigration status? afterall, i may be here illlegally from ireland.

• Link
• Report this comment

USinUK

Had related earlier, but you with your go home at noon or one schedule weren’t here….

but – was on the Dallas ring road, I635, just merged from the left off the HOV lane onto the four lanes eastbound. Heavy traffic, all three lanes to my left crowded and moving together at about 65 as Dallas traffic does. Up ahead cop put his lights on, went way to the right and got behind this old sedan. My wife looked and said ‘what’s that cop doing? Everyone’s moving together, no room to pass or change lanes, even.” As we passed the driver had pulled over to the right and brought his arms up in that “oh cr@p, not again” gesture. Young guy.

Care to guess his color?

Wasn’t white.

And in anticipation of the rebuttals: cop wasn’t in a position to run his plate before the stop, all traffic was moving together, this guy was way over to the right side. Daytime, so no burned out lights. But I’m sure the cop had a reason. Just like the situation in which one of our border cities’ mayor, Italian decent but as he put it “I look like my Hispanic constituents” got pulled over in his pickup truck. Cop asked for his license and insurance. Mayor said ‘why’d you pull me over?” Cop said “your right tire skimmed the white line.”

They want to target you, they’ll come up with something.

• Link
• Report this comment

I take it you don’t like Scalia Jay? Well I don’t like any of the libs on the court because they obviously base their rulings on their personnel ideology.

• Link
• Report this comment

About 6 of the 9 vote along party lines at least 90% of the time. I’m looking forward to the PPACA ruling, Hope Ginsburg will write a minority opinion explaining how the government has the constiutional right to force citizens to buy something they neither need nor want.

• Link
• Report this comment

Interesting how many on here are stuck on stupid about the Supreme Courts ruling. What happens if Obama loses and Romney orders Homeland Security and the DoJ to enforce existing immigration laws. The Supremes only ruled that the Federal government trumps the states on immigration law. It didn’t strike down existing immigration law, so a new administration could choose to enforce those laws as Obama has chosen not to. Maybe the states should sue the federal government for its failure to enforce our laws against illegal immigration. 65% of the population supports the Arizona law and believe in enforcement against illegal immigration.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay,

Your headline states that yesterdays SCOTUS ruling will impact HB 87 but then in the article there is no specifics. Can you please explain to us what provisions do you think it will effect?

• Link
• Report this comment

“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any form of Government becomes destructive to these Ends, it the Right of the People to alter it or abolish it, and to institute New Government……. it is their Right, it is their Duty to throw off such Government and to provide new Guards for their future Security.”

Thomas Jefferson
The Declaration of Independence

Think it’s time?

• Link
• Report this comment

“I’m pulled over by jealous cops all the time simply for my handsomeness”

you, too!!!???

• Link
• Report this comment

UsinUk,
people just don’t understand our plight, do they?…”let our people go”.

• Link
• Report this comment

The Obama administration again has come down on the side of American businessmen who make enormous profits from illegally using the foreign invaders against the working class citizens of the United States.

Fixed your selective rant…

• Link
• Report this comment

USinUK: yes, I think it’s totally time to throw off ANY government that restricts fellow legislators rights to speak and perform their duties just because they say the word VAGINA

It’s not the word so much as they felt insulted by her. The word was their excuse to shut her up, which is downright effed up.

• Link
• Report this comment

godless heathen

June 26th, 2012
9:16 am

Any restrictions if they are allergic?

• Link
• Report this comment

Adam – if they felt insulted by someone saying “no means no”, imagine how WE WOMEN FEEL when we’re told that OUR lives are less important than a clump of cells

• Link
• Report this comment

The NYers and other Yankees are only here to claim what is rightfully theirs.

Hint, next time, don’t lose! (grin)

• Link
• Report this comment

USinUK

Sorry, that 9?03 about the guy getting pulled over in Dallas and the Italian mayor in the border city getting stopped for his tire skimming the line was from Paul.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay — “Just as remarkably, Scalia used his dissent to launch a political attack on Obama’s recent decision not to deport an estimated 1.4 million illegal immigrants who were brought here as children. Referring slyly to “the executive’s unwise targeting” of resources to combat illegal immigration, Scalia wrote:

“The husbanding of scarce enforcement resources can hardly be the justification for this, since the considerable administrative cost of conduct­ing as many as 1.4 million background checks, and ruling on the biennial requests for dispensation that the non-enforcement program envisions, will necessarily be deducted from immigration enforcement.”

Considering that the last paragraph of the Morton Memo (which I’ve posted here probably four ot five times by now) directly refutes Justice Scalia’s manufactured concern, I feel pretty comfortable in asserting that the honorable gentleman is full of horse poop.

• Link
• Report this comment

ty webb – 9:08

And, you auditioned for that porn movie, but just didn’t measure up.

• Link
• Report this comment

Normal … but the song IS about me (although, I never wear a cravat .. and absolutely never gavotte )

• Link
• Report this comment

Recon

“What happens if Obama loses and Romney orders Homeland Security and the DoJ to enforce existing immigration laws. ”

It’s difficult to predict.

Will he expand the federal bureaucracy to accommodate the increased workload? Will he raise taxes to pay for it? Will he deficit spend to fund it?

Will he make due with current manpower and lay out a 25-year plan for processing all those people?

Will he pull government employees – law enforcement, attorneys, personnel types, operations centers, etc, off what they’re now doing to ‘enforce ALL” the immigration laws? Or will he ignore enforcing other laws to concentrate on enforcing ALL the immigration laws?

What will Romney do?

I don’t think even Romney knows what he’ll do.

• Link
• Report this comment

carlos,
that was a low blow.

• Link
• Report this comment

You can’t trust a state when it comes to fairness, the feds must step in.

• Link
• Report this comment

K71 — “Joe, 9:22, We have the resources….. now if we only had the balls to get it done.”

Yes, well, ICE leadership says we *don’t* have the resources to get it done, and that’s why they promulgated the new policy — at least a year ago.

http://www.ice.gov/doclib/secure-communities/pdf/prosecutorial-discretion-memo.pdf

• Link
• Report this comment

kayaker 71

“We have the resources….. now if we only had the balls to get it done.”

Heck, we had a couple million military a decade ago, we’d given DoD funds to resource fighting a real war (think invasion of S Korea) and a major engagement elsewhere, and all we heard was “we’re stretched too thin, This is gonna take a looonnnnng, time, decades maybe…”

Given that track record, why think INS or Homeland or any other, much smaller in terms of manpower, money and capability, agency could do better?

• Link
• Report this comment

or can’t find a construction job because a Mexican will do it for a completely unscrupulous American business owner will knowingly and illegally pay a non-citizen less money and keep the difference, the invasion the tens of thousands of scofflaws who do this are a problem.

Fixed your selective rant…

• Link
• Report this comment

USinUK: Oh believe me it makes me mad too. And it was definitely a d*ck move (pun intended).

• Link
• Report this comment

Obama appointed two socialists to the Supreme Court and now they are paying off for him. Who is the worst socialist of all time? Adolf Hitler.

• Link
• Report this comment

“two socialists”

ohsweetjeebus … someone else who has no idea what the word means …

• Link
• Report this comment

Paul:

Will he expand the federal bureaucracy to accommodate the increased workload? – No

Will he raise taxes to pay for it? – No
Will he deficit spend to fund it? – Yes

Will he make due with current manpower and lay out a 25-year plan for processing all those people?

Yes to the first part, no to the “having a plan” part.

And please, don’t anyone suggest that you think he would do any different than I just laid out. It’s pretty obvious he would do exactly this.

• Link
• Report this comment

“They do more than 10 million background checks a year on those looking to buy weapons.”

last time I checked … people PAY for CRBs when they’re done for gun purchases (has that changed???)

• Link
• Report this comment

“so, I suppose it was okay when W decided to set aside the law that enabled funding of stem cell research.”

So you dont see the difference between murder and illegal aliens?

• Link
• Report this comment

Hitler ran for office as a socialist – look it up. You don’t know crap so don’t act like you do.

• Link
• Report this comment

So what would the reaction be if the Federal Government refused to defend a state from foreign invaders? Would the state be allowed to defend itself? Or would the Federal Government step in and sue the state to cease and desist?

And Scalia is correct in his quote. We are a nation of soverign states, with the Feds only being able to do what is stated in the US Constitution.

Those that mock Scalia show just how ignorant they are on the founding of THESE UNITED STATES.

• Link
• Report this comment

Please, Oblama , since people dont know crap. Please define socialist.

• Link
• Report this comment

“We could close our Southern borders in a week. I’m not talking about ICE. I am talking about boots on the ground spread out over our entire Southern border turning Mexicans around and heading them South once again”

Have you forgotten that half or more of our “Southern border” is WATER?

• Link
• Report this comment

With this ruling Obama may get thousands of more illegal votes.

• Link
• Report this comment

So what would the reaction be if the Federal Government refused to defend a state from foreign invaders? Would the state be allowed to defend itself?

So I guess the state of New York should have gone after OBL?

• Link
• Report this comment

If we would pass very tough legislation and start enforcing it, there wouldn’t be many problems rouding them up. You can surrender for voluntary deportation within the next 90 days. After that anyone found in the country illegally will get 12 months in prison followed by deportation. We wouldn’t get all of them but 90%+ would just turn themselves in.

• Link
• Report this comment

how ’bout we just annex Mexico(for the Tecate) and Canada(for the Crown)?

• Link
• Report this comment

Hey kayaker, I was just yankin’ your chain.

DoD – Homeland – INS – the principle’s the same, as someone who was in one would realize. They may get gobs of money, they may have hundreds of thousands of employees, but when you count the number who are directly engaged in what the public perceives to be ‘the real mission’ it’s only a small fraction of the total.

Which is what the comparison with DoD and can’t ideally fight a couple minor engagements with a couple million people and billions of dollars was all about.

• Link
• Report this comment

Speaking of Hitler, here’s one of his biggest fans……

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/07/12107097-steve-smith-reputed-white-supremacist-causes-stir-by-winning-election-to-pennsylvania-county-gop-seat?lite

• Link
• Report this comment

JAY,

Funny how when SCOTUS goes against one parties notion of righteousness, the losing party cries “judicial activism”…chat a crock…I agree with decision but wonder why anyone would defend the right of illegals to be here by restricting validation of citizenship…do you simply want to open the borders and accomodate all comers???

• Link
• Report this comment

Common Sense , 9:38,

“refused to defend a state from foreign invaders”….. That’s exactly what Jan Brewer said to Bozo on the tarmac of that airport where she was shaking her finger at him. He paid no attention and blew her off. The latino vote is too important to him to enforce the law. State sovereignty is more important now than it has ever been. Scalia is most correct in his view of this issue and when Bozo and Holder pee on our Constitution and ignore the rights of states in this matter, we assume that they will pick up the ball and enforce our immigration laws. Nope. Captain John Yossarian would be most proud.

• Link
• Report this comment

Webster’s – socialism – advocating government ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods – everything is state owned and there is no private property. SOCIALISM is also referred to as “progressive”.

• Link
• Report this comment

of course, the fact that the terrorist organization, IRA, also has the word REPUBLICAN in it is a different matter all together.

And dont forget , Iraq had the REPUBLICAN GUARD, or was that Iran?

• Link
• Report this comment

do you simply want to open the borders and accomodate all comers???

_______

Nobody is in favor of that.

• Link
• Report this comment

Important to remember that a socialist/communist movement had just failed in Germany. So, in order to get those po’d workers to join him, Hitler called his party National Socialists.

Regular socialism is about workers owning the means of production.
Fascism isn’t interested in class struggle – it wants the wealthy owners of production to stay in power and uses political repression and persecution to enforce state power.

• Link
• Report this comment

Currently we have a socialist led Senate and a socialist in the White House who is bought and paid for by socialists.

• Link
• Report this comment

“everything is state owned and there is no private property”

and who in the Obama administration (or SCOTUS) is advocating for that???

please, show your work.

• Link
• Report this comment

Waiting for the remark ………..But ” GM, blah blah blah……..in 3………….2………..1.

• Link
• Report this comment

If we would pass very tough legislation and start enforcing it, there wouldn’t be many problems rounding up the American employers and businessmen. They can surrender for voluntary prosecution within the next 90 days. After that anyone found having profited from using illegals will get 12 months in prison followed by heavy fines. We wouldn’t get all of them but 90%+ would just turn themselves in.

• Link
• Report this comment

Oscar,

What do the liberals want immigration policy to look like? By recent judgment and historical enforcement at federal level, seems to me it’s, at best at political football…

• Link
• Report this comment

So, now we have a federal government who will not enforce our immigration laws and sues states that attempt to enforce their own laws against illegals. Ever wonder why? They hide behind this “profiling” bull sh*t and all the liberals swoon and grovel at the feet of the “Great One”, for being “fair”. Holder is somehow the great savior of minorities and he and Bozo are going to save them from the evil Republicans who just want them to go home. It’s VOTES, my friends, nothing but votes. And if you refuse to believe that, you are more stupid than even I give you credit for.

• Link
• Report this comment

JamVet, Bush is not my hero, far from it actually, but he never circumvented the constitution (bypass congress) to achieve his desired outcomes. I don’t agree with a lot he did or did not do but “them’s the facts”

• Link
• Report this comment

My sympathies generally lie with immigrants, and I generally think Congress incompetent to quantify the number of immigrants who should be allowed to come to the US. Nevertheless, our host’s criticism of Scalia’s argue is not valid. I cannot imagine why Scalia’s truthful notation of the enforcement preferences of President Obama should be a basis for criticism of Scalia.

In the opinion Scalia also wrote: “There has come to pass, and is with us today, the specter that Arizona and the States that support it predicted: A Federal Government that does not want to enforce the immigration laws as written, and leaves the States’ borders unprotected against immigrants whom those laws would exclude.” Did that not prove prescient, when Ms. Napolitano – hours after the the opinion was published, announced that ICE would no longer accept calls on detained illegals? We now have a chief executive officer who refutes his oath of office: faced with a final interpretation of the Constitution, he declines to enforce the laws.

• Link
• Report this comment

I think we need to increase the amount of justices on the Supreme Court to 11. This situation with 9 justices shows that with only 9, the court can easily become politicized. If Obama and the Dems win big this next election, they should pack the court so that undemocratic, plutocratic rulings like Citizens United can be overturned.

• Link
• Report this comment

Is everything state owned? NOT YET BUT OBAMA IS WORKING ON IT.

You’re next, Oblama.

• Link
• Report this comment

from Wikipedia:
National Socialism (common English short form Nazism, German: Nationalsozialismus) was the ideology of the Nazi Party and Nazi Germany.[1][2][3][4] It is a variety of fascism that incorporates biological racism and antisemitism.[5] Nazism used elements of the far-right racist völkisch German nationalist movement and the anti-communist Freikorps paramilitary culture that fought against the communist revolutionaries in post-World War I Germany.[6] The ideology was designed to draw workers away from communism and into völkisch nationalism.[7] The Nazis’ paramilitary organization, the Sturmabteilung (SA) engaged in physical attacks on its opponents, including communists, Jews, and social democrats.[8] The Nazis promoted German territorial expansionism to gain Lebensraum (”living space”) for German settlers.[9]

• Link
• Report this comment

Fascist are what we liberals eat for breakfast.

• Link
• Report this comment

USinUK

“and your proof???

evidence???

you know … a little thing to back up your backasswards claims?”

Y’know, USinUK, this is turning into an everyday thing. When Kamchak’s Observation began, I was really, really hoping it would be sporadic. But our friends on the Right never fail to disappoint.

Okay, first post of the day of Kamchak’s Observation:

“If we’re going to make sh1t up, no sense in being h@lf-@ssed about it.”

• Link
• Report this comment

“Guns don’t kill, people kill.” – Eric Holder testimony to Issa.

• Link
• Report this comment

The citizens of the U.S. aren’t “progressive” enough to vote for someone that actually says they are a socialist – of course they don’t come out and say they ignore state’s rights like Obama did with immigration, right to marriage law, and all the other state’s laws he has ordered the law makers to ignore. Obama put his left hand on the Bible and raised his right hand and swore under oath to uphold the laws of the land. He lied under oath.

• Link
• Report this comment

But, bottom line, the only way I see to deal with the “Illegal Alien Problem” is to offer a path to citizenship with no penalty so that all will sign up and then close the borders if you can’t find any other way…but always remember that our neighbors from south of the border aren’t the only illegal aliens here. There is no easy solution and “Throw them all out” mentality is just moronic.

Yup. We need to quit kicking the can down the road and deal with it.

• Link
• Report this comment

IF, IF they had ruled that Obama, Holder, the FBI, INS MUST ENFORCE IMMIGRATION LAWS, this would be acceptable! The various states are acting because the federal scum WILL NOT ENFORCE THE BORDER OR IMMIGRATION LAWS AND ARE ALLOWING US TO BE INVADED BY MEXICAN AND OTHER LATIN ILLEGALS!!! By deciding that they will just not enforce the laws, THEY ARE VIOLATING THEIR OATH OF OFFICE AND SHOULD BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY!!

• Link
• Report this comment

Normal,

The fed’s can’t control the border. So they get large voting block by amnesty to current “occupants” then leave border porous to keep those votes…

• Link
• Report this comment

ICE is nothing but an arm of the Dept of Justice who has sued the very people who are trying to enforce immigration law. Think that ICE will do anything but what Holder and his cronies want them to do?

ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) is as much a part of the Dept of Justice as the military is under Health and Human Services…..

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/dhs-orgchart.pdf

That one deserves a “Pants on Fire” rating…..

• Link
• Report this comment

“because the federal scum WILL NOT ENFORCE THE BORDER OR IMMIGRATION LAWS”

Never mind that deportations are WAY, WAY up under this administration. Don’t EVER let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

• Link
• Report this comment

he never circumvented the constitution

WTF???? You have got to be joking. Clearly you are completely uneducated on his record in this matter.

Over 800 (!!) signing statements. Most designed to effectively nullify passed legislation, rather than veto ANY of it.

He was such a scofflaw that the American Bar Association – chock full of Republican lawyers – wrote him on three different occasion expressing great concern over his violation of US law in FIVE DIFFERENT AREAS of the law.

Take it up with them and people who actually know what happened in the previous (W)orst Ever administration…

WASHINGTON, July 23 — The American Bar Association said Sunday that President Bush was flouting the Constitution and undermining the rule of law by claiming the power to disregard selected provisions of bills that he signed.

In signing a statutory ban on torture and other national security laws, Mr. Bush reserved the right to disregard them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/24/washington/24prexy.html?_r=1

• Link
• Report this comment

Just assume that latinos could not vote and that sending them home would win Bozo a second term. He would break his skinny legs rushing to the phone to mobilize those “inadequate” resources that he claims we have to get rid of every latino in his power and send them home. Employers who hire latinos would end up in prison and all benefits for them would be cancelled in an effort to get rid of them. Those work permits for the poor unfortunate children of these people would be cancelled and the 14th Amendment would take on a whole new meaning. Bozo could care less about those poor unfortunate people who crossed our borders illegally or their children. EVERYTHING that his clown does is done to get him re-elected, promote his Socialist agenda and change the very nature our our country to his own image. I don’t know how anyone could rationalize this kind of behavior and pretend that it is for any other reason.

• Link
• Report this comment

KOOL – you are what you eat.

• Link
• Report this comment

WILL NOT ENFORCE THE BORDER OR IMMIGRATION LAWS AND ARE ALLOWING US TO BE INVADED BY MEXICAN AND OTHER LATIN ILLEGALS!!!

So Candians, the British, the Irish, Austrialians, Asians, illegals are welcome in this country. But Latin illegals aren’t . Okayyyyyyyyy, gotcha!

• Link
• Report this comment

Doggone/GA

June 26th, 2012
10:10 am
-
_____

That has already happened. crossings by water have increased. But I believe over the last year we have had more illegals returning to Mexico than we have had enterenig the US. Net decrease.
Mexician economy is growing faster than the US economy. The real answer is to reduce the appeal of moving to the US.

• Link
• Report this comment

“But I believe over the last year we have had more illegals returning to Mexico than we have had enterenig the US. Net decrease”

So border patrol ISN’T the answer after all

“The real answer is to reduce the appeal of moving to the US.”

And that is why *I* would go after the employers

• Link
• Report this comment

So Candians, the British, the Irish, Austrialians, Asians, illegals are welcome in this country. But Latin illegals aren’t . Okayyyyyyyyy, gotcha!

A true con has to keep up appearances.

• Link
• Report this comment

Doggone/GA

June 26th, 2012
10:15 am

_______

Figured you would hit that softball out of the park.

• Link
• Report this comment

Paulo

That’s an affordable proposition at this point. Funny how Mexico’s policy is likely what ours should be…

• Link
• Report this comment

Deport the Racist bigots on the right

• Link
• Report this comment

Enter your comments here

• Link
• Report this comment

If they come from England or any where else and they are illegal – send them back. This is not a racial issue though we all know the Dem strategy is to use race warfare – Obama is “The Great Divider.” As Jay said – Obama divides. Immigration is a security issue. Observe our laws and enter through the front door. Mexico has immigration laws and they send illegal aliens back – after they spend time in their jails.

• Link
• Report this comment

“So I guess the state of New York should have gone after OBL?”

If OBL was in New York, damn straight.

Especially if the Feds were choosing to ignore him.

• Link
• Report this comment

It’s the same ol’ cut off your nose to spite your face routine. Crack down on the illegals and see the produce rot in the fields.

Pander to their base and pay for the pandering at the grocery.

These ol’ boys are long on action, but short on foresight.

And, it’s not that they don’t know, but that so much of what they know just ain’t so.

• Link
• Report this comment

I’m curious, if the police are conducting one of their ‘money bombs’ – AKA road block check for anything they can find – will they then be allowed to check for citizenship, and how will they do it since they aren’t required to carry ‘proof’ on em? Probably arrest em for a burned out license plate light, then call the place that knows these things…

• Link
• Report this comment

ty webb – 9:26

Don’t worry!!! There are TV commercials and infomercials now running who say their products and services can improve your endowment.

• Link
• Report this comment

I second Doggone’s 10:15

• Link
• Report this comment

Thank God the Conservative majority on the Supreme Court are not ACTIVISTS LIKE THOSE DAMN LIBERAL JUSTICES!

• Link
• Report this comment

Dirty Dawg

I think they have to be arrested for something first. Then, they can’t be detained any longer than what would be the normal time period for whatever they’re arrested for.

http://www.ice.gov/secure_communities/

http://www.ice.gov/287g/

Those are the two big programs that ICE runs with state/local authorities in regards to immigration.

—————————–

larry

Ok, don’t let me spoil your fun.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Probably arrest em for a burned out license plate light, then call the place that knows these things…”

watch out, Dirty … I made the same observation on Page 1 and was accused of throwing the racist card

• Link
• Report this comment

“The “left” can’t handle the truth”

particularly when it’s lies regurgitated by numpties who can’t back up their claims …

but thanks for playing.

• Link
• Report this comment

Oblama – 9:47

Progressives generally want the Govt. to take action in areas where the free, competitive market does not produce the maximun public good. That is NOT the same as Socialism.

Your Christian Academy “education” is both pitiful and dangerous.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Our Supreme Courts Justices are legal scholars and honest, fair people but your Justices are political hacks”

_________

Progress. Now you seem to understand our political system.

• Link
• Report this comment

Hi Brocephus!!!

haven’t seen you since the pork shoulder last week or so … how was it???

• Link
• Report this comment

“Off topic,…..

Good to see that someone who goes to GA Tech finally took out some thug that was trying to break into their apartment. There needs to be lots more of this and perhaps those thugs won’t think that Tech students are such an easy target.”

Maybe I am thinking of another situation but I thought the guy who was shot was some drunken fool trying to find his bed.

……or I could be wrong.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Obama is our first “Reality Show” President.”

considering the people who voted for W said they liked him because they thought he was a guy they’d want to have a beer with, that’s effing RICH.

• Link
• Report this comment

USinner

I didn’t think it was my best one, but the reviewers thought otherwise. I’ve been told that I should do 2-3 at a time instead of just doing one. We do a cooking contest at work, and I may bring one in for competition this year.

• Link
• Report this comment

“The 50% of Americans who pay no federal/state tax get the free ride at the expense of others.”

Tom for someone who is retired (thank you for you service), I am surprised that you would call out many of the lower ranking enlisted personnel who based on salary and EITC (If they qualify) are not paying Fed Inc taxes.

• Link
• Report this comment

Steve, 10:31,

The AJC reported today that the perp broke a window and was attempting to enter an apartment occupied by three Tech students. One had a gun and shot the invader once in the chest. He is in critical condition at Grady.

• Link
• Report this comment

larry
There were widespread allegations of abuse against Mexicans and US citizens of Mexican descent, including harassment and beatings.[3] Lawsuits were filed and settled in favor of victims.[4]

That was the outcome of ” Operation Wetback” .
Thanx, guy. The one time I came across this, it was hailed a “success”.

The Texas Historical Ass’n knows this op existed
http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/pqo01

• Link
• Report this comment

Mitt Romney junk bond salesman.

• Link
• Report this comment

“I’ve been told that I should do 2-3 at a time instead of just doing one. We do a cooking contest at work, and I may bring one in for competition this year.”

honest to god, my mouth is watering at the thought … (just add some light brown sugar next time)

did you make some slaw to go with???

• Link
• Report this comment

Romney is losing in FLA.

• Link
• Report this comment

Even W was more in touch than Mitt….Unreal…

• Link
• Report this comment

“Even W was more in touch than Mitt….Unreal…”

dammit, man … that’s the scariest thing I’ve heard all day!

• Link
• Report this comment

They BOTH @ 10:34

You’re better than me. If I had even responded to that post, I would have simply claimed bulls**t and moved on. That lie has been debunked so many times, I think Jason Voorhees is afraid of it now.

• Link
• Report this comment

Here’s the problem with conservatives…………..

I know Arizona wasnt asking to invade Mexico. But the border is a FEDERAL border , not a state border. It is up to the FEDERAL government to enforce the laws, not the state government.

I mean, does Minnesota have a paper’s please law in regard to Canadians? Im pretty sure there are some Candians who take jobs , who have criminal records , cross the border every day. I havent heard Minnesota passing their own immigration laws. Because the border with Canada is a FEDERAL border.

• Link
• Report this comment

Somehow liberals feel that we have some kind of obligation to accept immigrants into our country and do it on the fast track just so they won’t have to be upset about waiting so long. We do not now, and have never had, that kind of obligation to anyone from a foreign country. Immigration to the US and citizenship in this country is not a right….. it is privilege.

• Link
• Report this comment

“GOP wants to outsource YOUR job…”

And Obama’s more worried about a million illegal aliens getting jobs and buying votes than he is about making sure actual American citizens have jobs. Sick.

• Link
• Report this comment

Tundra @ 10:35,

President Eisenhower i guess was not proud of it , or there would be more mention of the operation at his library or in his official papers.

• Link
• Report this comment

Pelosi’s law: Ensuring every felon, illegal alien, and dead person’s (zombie’s?) Constitutional right to vote Democrat.

How dare those evil Republicans try to enforce the law…

• Link
• Report this comment

“We do not now, and have never had, that kind of obligation to anyone from a foreign country”

“Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,

With conquering limbs astride from land to land;

Here at our sea-washed, sunset hates shall stand

A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame

Is the imprisoned lighting, and her name

Mother of Exiles. From her beacon hand

Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command

The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she

With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

• Link
• Report this comment

I’d like to see the data where illegals are “taking our jobs.” They are doing jobs that nobody else in this lazy ass country wants to do. It’s a non issue. It’s a wedge issue. It’s not what we should be focusing on right now.

• Link
• Report this comment

o, what do you do when the Federal government drops the ball and sues you when you try to do their job?

Simple, dont do their job. Its a job of the federal government . And according to the number of deportations over the last three years, they have been doing their job.

• Link
• Report this comment

Does this mean the peaches get picked or not…

Speaking of that, I went to a local orchard and picked a bushel last w/e. Only way to assure that they won’t be all beat to hell.

• Link
• Report this comment

Hot mystery meat, Bushology is to ignore the law if you don’t agree with the law.

And further, as a Bushbot, you are required to pretend that that is not a verified or indisputable fact.

Everything was hunky dory with you guppies up right up until January 21, 2009…

• Link
• Report this comment

“Very few socialists have the guts to admit publicly they are socialists”

considering none of us advocate for the government to take over business/property, it’s funny how that works …

• Link
• Report this comment

Tom

Thanks for the reply, however I’m just stating the reality. We have young men and women, who are in that demographic you seem to diss, who have their @$$ on the line at this very moment

Once again, I do appreciate your service (my father is retired military), but what I said it true

• Link
• Report this comment

steve- …”Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free”,

That’s the problem, many illegal aliens have no intention of ever becoming American’s. We used to be the “great melting pot”. Thanks to liberals, we are now the “unmelting ‘celebrate diversity and watch out for your own best interest’ pot”

• Link
• Report this comment

Agree that the border can’t be sealed completly. But crossings have been greatly reduced.

That Great Wall of Bush intended only to cover about 1/3 of the border. They exempted Texas, except for a small section down near Brownsville. Even there, their hearts weren’t in it. Huge gaps in the wall at the Hunt (Oil Billionaire) plantation and at the River Bend Resort and golf course, and probably more.

• Link
• Report this comment

JamVet – So Obama is continuing Bush’s philosophy of ignoring the law? Bush is gone. Obama’s next.

• Link
• Report this comment

If you advocate (like Obama) the Fed government redistributing “private owned” property (wealth) you are a socialist. Guess you didn’t know it?

• Link
• Report this comment

Got to go call Orkin ……… fleas are multiplying – birth control for fleas.

• Link
• Report this comment

Thanks to neocons, and their adoration for unscrupulous American businessmen who blatantly disregard the law of the land and profit handsomely from using illegals, we are now the “unmelting ‘celebrate diversity and watch out for your own best interest’ pot”

All so JKL2 can watch and laugh as his neighbor’s and family’s incomes are driven down even further…

• Link
• Report this comment

JamVet – So Obama is continuing Bush’s philosophy of ignoring the law? Bush is gone. Obama’s next.

Hallelujah. The very first crack in your The GOP is Perfect armor!

The difference between you and me is one of intellectual honesty.

You lack it.

I’ve written over and over again how BHO is in many ways just another GWB. I’ve flamed him repeatedly for a wide variety of policy decisions. I have given him a grade as low as a D+. (Now at a C-).

You?

You would no more find ANY fault with George W. Bush than Oblama would. And it would be a cold day in the Christian’s hell when you EVER expounded on any of it.

Why?

You loved him and would vote for him again, if you could…

• Link
• Report this comment

Like control the border? That is their job you know…

Nope. That’s not their job. Congress is responsible for legislating the laws in relation to immigration. If you want it to be a criminal offense for people to be here illegally, then Congress has to legislate it as that is not how the law is written at this time. Also, if you want more enforcement along the southern border, then it is the responsibility of Congress to budget and allocate the necessary funding to implement the increased enforcement.

As long as Congress is turning a deaf ear to those two primary immigration functions they control, then nothing else can be done above and beyond what is already being done now. I’ll agree with you that the average congressman couldn’t tell you what they’re supposed to do, and that’s because we’ve let them off the hook for doing what they are supposed to do when they go to DC.

• Link
• Report this comment

for *not* doing…..

• Link
• Report this comment

JV – I have already told you numerous times that I did not vote for “W” and you should know that by now. I have NEVER praised “W”……. show me evidence. I am not a Repub. I am a fiscal conservative. BOTH parties have “evolved” to big government spending programs they can’t pay for. I am opposed to the expansion of spending by the Fed government – whoever is doing it. If you don’t realize that I am not a Repub by now you are in denial. I have never seen any comment from you disagreeing with Obama. Of course, I can’t read every comment ever blogged on here as I still have a real life. “W” is past history……. I prefer to stay in the present and future – which we can still do something about. I see no need to keep bringing up “W”. He’s gone. Just like Obama will soon be gone and I will be talking about the next President.

• Link
• Report this comment

HOT AIR – Your fleas are still multiplying…… try an independent contractor – Orkin has turned non profit.

• Link
• Report this comment

I’m an independent contractor – we eradicate big government fleas – on the left and on the right. Any sign of fleas should be addressed immediately as they multiply rapidly out of control.

• Link
• Report this comment

K71 — “We could close our Southern borders in a week. I’m not talking about ICE. I am talking about boots on the ground spread out over our entire Southern border turning Mexicans around and heading them South once again.”

Bulldada.

And, I might add, you’re pretty clearly asking for the expansion of government (e.g. more troops in uniform) to accomplish your objective.

I don’t begrudge you your opinion, but if y’all are going to scream about President Obama wanting to expand government (when he’s actually SHRUNK it), then don’t yammer on about wanting to expand it YOURSELVES.

ICE is nothing but an arm of the Dept of Justice who has sued the very people who are trying to enforce immigration law. Think that ICE will do anything but what Holder and his cronies want them to do? Not on your life.

• Link
• Report this comment

Apologies; that last graf was from K71 and I didn’t enclose it in quotation marks or reply to it, as I meant to do.

• Link
• Report this comment

joe mama- And, I might add, you’re pretty clearly asking for the expansion of government (e.g. more troops in uniform) to accomplish your objective.

No expansion necesary. We have the troops, we would just have to reallocate them along the border. It would be very easy to make it a National Guard function.

• Link
• Report this comment

K71 @ 10:10 — “I don’t know”

Well, you’re right about that, at least.

• Link
• Report this comment

JKL2 – JamVet spends some of his time criticizing me so I don’t think we agree on much. No I don’t agree with Repub business men all being crooks. Where did you get that? There are plenty of crooks on the left. You don’t have to be a Repub or a Dem to be a crook. It was stated by someone on this blog that only Repubs were legally allowed to be business people. I’m not sure if they were stupid or just being silly? Just responding to that bit of ridiculousness. I happen to enjoy Sponge Bob- go to every time Obama comes on T V.

• Link
• Report this comment

C. Sense — “Here’s the problem with liberals….Was Arizona asking to invade Mexico? No. They are tryiing to secure their own state from people who have no legal right to be there.”

Which is not a right or power granted to individual states per the Constitution.

The immigrants may have no legal right to be here, but the State of Arizona didn’t have the legal right to assert some of the authority it tried to assume.

QED.

• Link
• Report this comment

JKL — “No expansion necesary. We have the troops, we would just have to reallocate them along the border. It would be very easy to make it a National Guard function.”

I disagree.

Firstly, you’d have to *activate* many units of the Guard for an extended period of time. That’s very costly.

Secondly, most Guard units (hell, most units of the Army and Marine Corps) aren’t trained in law enforcement.

Thirdly, it still won’t work. Sealing the border is NOT the way. Securing the job market, the right to vote and the right to public assistance is they way to go.

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

• Link
• Report this comment

“Unauthorized work­ers trying to support their families, for example, likely pose less danger than alien smugglers or aliens who com­mit a serious crime,” Kennedy wrote.

And Jay said that Scalia made a political statement. This is the biggest political statement I have seen yet. What does that have to do with the law, Illegal is Illegal.

• Link
• Report this comment

Right to public assistance? Is that in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights? Show me.

• Link
• Report this comment

rastus — “Right to public assistance? Is that in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights? Show me.”

Perhaps you weren’t aware of it, but the disbursement of public assistance is a *state* matter, not a Federal one.

Go smarten yourself up. Then you can come back, and maybe I’ll talk to you some more.

• Link
• Report this comment

Mama – and it is unconstitutional for The Fed government to not defend our borders. You avoided my question. Would you defend yourself if law enforcement refused to defend you? YES you would and that is exactly the position that the Fed government has put Arizona in. I am for legal immigration – have no reason to be against it. Legal immigration is life blood to this country and always has been. You want me to be some radical right winger but I am not. Just because you don’t agree with me doesn’t make you right Tactics of the left……….. shout down dissenters until they go away. I’m not going.

• Link
• Report this comment

Mama – You said “right to public assistance….. explain what you mean by right to public assistance. Public assistance is not a right . but usually is required by law.

• Link
• Report this comment

Oblablabla — “Mama – and it is unconstitutional for The Fed government to not defend our borders.”

So you say. Your evidence, please?

“You avoided my question.”

No. Your question is specious, naive and irrelevant.

“Would you defend yourself if law enforcement refused to defend you? YES you would and that is exactly the position that the Fed government has put Arizona in.”

Irrelevant. Arizona, per the Constitution, is explicitly *denied* the authority to do what it did. There are no exceptions for exigent circumstances such as you posit in your question.

“I am for legal immigration – have no reason to be against it.”

Again, I do not believe you.

“Legal immigration is life blood to this country and always has been. You want me to be some radical right winger but I am not.”

And you want me to be some communist left winger, but I’m not. Maybe if you stopped being a Richard and read what I posted for you, we might get along better.

“Just because you don’t agree with me doesn’t make you right”

That’s correct. I’m right regardless of what you say or do.

“Tactics of the left……….. shout down dissenters until they go away.”

That’s a pretty stupid assertion on your part, considering I can’t make you leave. If you don’t like what I have to say, then you certainly don’t have to listen to it.

I’m not going.

Suit yourself.

• Link
• Report this comment

That part of the Arizona law was there as soon as George bush took office in 2001 because a lot illegals been deported already under that law where the person been stopped on a traffic routine they think they will have a ticket and then thats it next thing they know they been on removal they didnt even know that but what people need to know about the law is just because the person is illegal dont mean he or she is deportable it just like i call the police and tell them someone is selling drug in that house they cant just showup right away burst the door and arrest somebody these illegals they use to have a valid driver licence with that they tough everything is ok and thats how they get a get a one way ticket back home

• Link
• Report this comment

TL; DR

• Link
• Report this comment