Support Arizona!

[dancer]

When I was applying to immigrate to this country a couple of decades ago, I had to submit among other medical repots a chest X-ray film, and a guarantee letter showing that I would not become the society's burden financially.

Where are the laws and orders of this once great country?

San Francisco wants to boycott Arizona, and I can not wait to see Arizona pulls the plug of their utilities supplies to SF.

Shame on those who want to boycott Arizona. Let us all take a vacation in Arizona this year!

[LedZap]

Yes...Arizona supplies power to LA also. I heard this morning they were thinking about pulling that plug.

[juswanano]

Wow, a real honest to goodness legal immigrant I thought you were a figment of some one wit a great imagination ..., sure wish I could shake your hand . Not really, i knew people that took the time and come here legally existed. lol

I am in support of Arizona . The 'new' law is not new . The state of Arizona is just adding a monetary fine to an existing Federal law.
Makes the rest of us USA's 49 states look bad . IMO

[sunny]

The law in Arizona is unconstitutional. Plain and simple. If we were to drive thru Arizona, we surely would be stopped, as my husband is nice and brown. What is going to end up happening however, is we will ALL have to end up carrying papers to prove that we are legal. There are more WHITE illegal immigrants in the US than brown. Look at the FOB's.. there are millions, yet, they are not subject to the same harrassment as the browns are, it is discrimination, plain and simple.

[Popycock]

Take a look at this;

http://www.bettorschat.com/forums/rants-politics-religion/184113-az-sonoran-desert-outside-tucson-az.html

[sunny]

From the site: "I think that anyone here who is not a citizen (student visa, temp worker, etc) must have these papers on them at ALL times. So it sounds like the only ones w/o any documents shouldn't be here anyway."

Popycock:

What you are failing to take into consideration is that many have already been beaten and arrested until they can prove they are a US citizen. There was an incident that stated a young man had been severly beaten only due to his color... guess what, his family has been here for generations and now the particular police department and city are under a heavy lawsuit.

Hope you are white... and legal... but, do not forget,, unless the law applies to everyone it is unconstitutional.

Why does no one complain about the white illegal immigrants? What about the FOB's that come over 1000's at a time? Can you explain this? Please?

[Popycock]

I have no doubt there are isolated cases of unnecessary harassment
(that ends up in a law suit with the offended receiving lots of money).

The Arizona law is actually less harsh then the existing federal law re-
garding illegals. Federal law allows an officer to see documentation
even without suspicion which is contrary to Arizona’s law that says
the officer could ask for documentation as a secondary inquiry.

Meaning that the officer’s first contact would be for something else,
such as speeding.

Besides, too many people are reading way too much into this.
Arizona is mostly trying to get the federal government to step up
and do it’s job.

[sunny]

I disagree with you 100%.

This debate, like the law is moot... there is a renegade government in place in Arizona, and they need to be stopped. What you are not realizing, is this is the same type of behavior that Chavez and Castro play.

Look at it from a different point of view.

[Popycock]

That's almost laughable, if you think Arizona is a renegade government you need to remove your blinders and
look at what's happening at the federal level.
I could fully understand your frustration if you referencing the Obama administration but to say that about
Arizona is ludicrous.
Your distrust is definitely misdirected.

[sunny]

I do not trust the Obama administration as far as I can throw them.. nor did I trust the Bush ideology.

Matter of fact, I trust very, very few people. I always end up getting my finger tips burned. The few that I trust could invade me and seriously injure me if they saw fit.

Fortunately, that has yet to happen.

I bet you would change your mind if you drove thru Arizona with my neice, who is brown, not white, not mexican. She is phillapina, just as the guy who got beat up for not being able to prove he was a citizen... I still say that we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg here... Arizona needs to be stopped.

[sunny]

By the way... I personally know Chavez, and this is one of the stunts that he likes to pull. Don't forget, he got his learning on Castro's knee!!

[Popycock]

Chill out, take a pill.
It sounds like your whole world revolves around a single incident.
Cops in the U.S. don't drag people out of their cars and beat them
unless the officers life is in danger.

If you're legal, you have nothing to worry about.
If you're not legal, look at all the freebies you get.

[sunny]

I am legal... my family came to the US long before the railroad was put in... my grandpappy helped lay those ties.

I know illegals, I have yet to see them get anything for free... and, I will add, that NONE of the illegals I know are brown.. they are all white.. or FOB.

[sunny]

Treat everyone the same is all I am asking.

The Federal Government does not want to stop anyone from coming in.. would you like to know why? When they get employed, they have to use a fake ss# ... in doing so, they can never recoup the funds that is paid into OUR system. Social Security and the IRS benefit from these funds.. creating a huge slush funds that is being kept a secret. If they were serious, do you not think that the path shown in the pictures would have officers all around? Get realistic with your attitude.

[Popycock]

I think you're much safer here in Arizona than you would be in the Philippines.

You might wanna grab some ice cream!

[sunny]

The phillipines have the taliban. Known fact. Also, if you are white, they will grab you real fast. Think about that.

The ice cream I am having now is blood orange by Ciao Bella... want some? It is a sherbet.... that and a glass of cold fresh lime juice!


I am staying out of Arizona... thanks, but, no thanks.

[Limbo]

Actually I am a legal immigrant living in Arizona. In my opinion, the AZ law is constitutional since it is only about enforcing the current law which was created by the feds. It says nothing about who may legally immigrate to this country, which would be unconstitutional.

There is so much BS floating around about this new law that it is not even funny. The way it works is that if you break the law in some way (speeding, broken tail light) or are suspected of having done so, you will be asked for ID. If you don't have valid ID (which you can only get in Arizona if you are here legally) you may be questioned further about your immigration status if you can only produce identification from a foreign country.

All this crap about racial profiling is just a smokescreen for people who don't want immigration law enforced.

I think do-gooder liberals who are against the Arizona law should send some of their own money to Arizona to help pay for the costs of illegal immigration. If not, they should shut the F up about it.

[MrRee]

Actually I am a legal immigrant living in Arizona. In my opinion, the AZ law is constitutional since it is only about enforcing the current law which was created by the feds. It says nothing about who may legally immigrate to this country, which would be unconstitutional.

There is so much BS floating around about this new law that it is not even funny. The way it works is that if you break the law in some way (speeding, broken tail light) or are suspected of having done so, you will be asked for ID. If you don't have valid ID (which you can only get in Arizona if you are here legally) you may be questioned further about your immigration status if you can only produce identification from a foreign country.

All this crap about racial profiling is just a smokescreen for people who don't want immigration law enforced.

I think do-gooder liberals who are against the Arizona law should send some of their own money to Arizona to help pay for the costs of illegal immigration. If not, they should shut the F up about it.


I Totaly agree!!!
I was in Arizona a month ago, and yes I was sure stopped by the border patrol and checked. They are doing a great job!

[Patt]

All this crap about racial profiling is just a smokescreen for people who don't want immigration law enforced.

I think do-gooder liberals who are against the Arizona law should send some of their own money to Arizona to help pay for the costs of illegal immigration. If not, they should shut the F up about it.

Ah - the rub. The reason that the left of our society does NOT want this law put into place is the deportation aspect of illegals once found. They would much rather have 'comprehensive reform' that includes yet another amnesty program which has only proven to increase illegal immigration. Who, after all, wouldn't come if they knew that there was no penalty for breaking the law? Who would seek to reinstate an expiring visa if they knew there was no penalty for not doing so?

That's the bottom line.

However, the right in our society watched as Kennedy's 1986 amnesty produced MORE illegals just as every other amnesty that followed. Why do that which is proved to be ineffective?

Amnesty is the key - the American public has rejected that notion. Consequently, those who are for yet another amnesty are fighting tooth and nail to get 'comprehensive reform' in the hopes that they can politically force the issue. They don't, however, have the numbers - either in demographics, popular support, or congressional will.

[Popycock]

If anyone thinks the Arizona immigration laws are tough, take at look at Mexico's.


Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:

in the country legally;
have the means to sustain themselves economically;
not destined to be burdens on society;
of economic and social benefit to society;
of good character and have no criminal records; and
contributors to the general well-being of the nation.
The law also ensures that:

immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;
foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;
foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country's internal politics;
foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;
foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;
those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.

[Carrot]

Al countries should have a photo ID card for it's citizens if you ask me.

Just a photo, name, date of birth and possibly a fingerprint.

[Katt]

Al countries should have a photo ID card for it's citizens if you ask me.

Just a photo, name, date of birth and possibly a fingerprint.

I have absolutely no doubt there will be a NATIONAL ID for every person no matter of age, probably issued at birth or when you apply for a SS card or ID/DL.. I may NOT live to see it happen, but it will eventually.. ;)

[Carrot]

I have absolutely no doubt there will be a NATIONAL ID for every person no matter of age, probably issued at birth or when you apply for a SS card or ID/DL.. I may NOT live to see it happen, but it will eventually.. ;)

Do you think it's a bad thing?

[dancer]

The law in Arizona is unconstitutional. Plain and simple. If we were to drive thru Arizona, we surely would be stopped, as my husband is nice and brown. What is going to end up happening however, is we will ALL have to end up carrying papers to prove that we are legal. There are more WHITE illegal immigrants in the US than brown. Look at the FOB's.. there are millions, yet, they are not subject to the same harrassment as the browns are, it is discrimination, plain and simple.

Have you read the constitution regarding an officer's right checking on residents'' paper? Can you point out and quote "word for word" from the constitution that the Arizona's law is violating ? If you do not even know what the constitution says, I can point you to the right place to learn it.

You are too obsessed with 'colors' that you can not see things or think clearly.

[Skeltered]

i prefer national hi-tech id cards , to having illegal immigrants here , draining our resources.
there's no excuse for that , imo.

[Patt]

Well, I think we'll have to have the states at least agree to comply first ----

REAL ID Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to:navigation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act#head), search (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act#p-search)
The REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub.L. 109-13 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-109publ13/content-detail.html), 119 Stat. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Statutes_at_Large) 302, enacted May 11, 2005, was an Act of Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Congress) that modified U.S. federal law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_United_States) pertaining to security (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security), authentication (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authentication), and issuance procedures standards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard) for the state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state) driver's licenses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver%27s_license) and identification (ID) cards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identification_card), as well as various immigration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration) issues pertaining to terrorism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism).
The law set forth certain requirements for state driver's licenses and ID cards to be accepted by the federal government for "official purposes", as defined by the Secretary of Homeland Security (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeland_Security). The Secretary of Homeland Security has defined "official purposes" as presenting state driver's licenses and identification cards for boarding commercially operated airline flights and entering federal buildings and nuclear power plants.
The REAL ID Act implements the following:


Changing visa limits for temporary workers, nurses, and Australian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia) citizens.
Establishing new national standards for state-issued driver licenses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver_license) and non-driver identification cards.
Funding some reports and pilot projects related to border security.
Introducing rules covering "delivery bonds" (rather like bail bonds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bail_bond) but for aliens who have been released pending hearings).
Updating and tightening the laws on application for asylum and deportation of aliens for terrorist activity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism).
Waiving laws that interfere with construction of physical barriers at the borders.

As of April 2, 2008, all 50 states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state) have either applied for extensions of the original May 11, 2008 compliance deadline or received unsolicited extensions.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act#cite_note-0) As of October 2009[update] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=REAL_ID_Act&action=edit), 25 states have approved either resolutions or binding legislation not to participate in the program, and with President Obama's selection of Janet Napolitano (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Napolitano) (a prominent critic of the program) to head the Department of Homeland Security (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Homeland_Security), the future of the law remains uncertain,[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act#cite_note-1) and bills have been introduced into Congress to amend or repeal it.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act#cite_note-2) The most recent of these, dubbed PASS ID (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PASS_ID), would eliminate many of the more burdensome technological requirements but still require states to meet federal standards in order to have their ID cards accepted by federal agencies.

[Katt]

Do you think it's a bad thing?

Nope, sure don't.. Last time I was stopped in a traffic stop I was asked for my ID/DL, registration and insurance, what's the problem in showing one more card saying you're a US citizen?????

Back to AZ for a few.. I saw a comparrison of the AZ law and the Federal law on the same thing..

The Federal law says a person can now be stopped for NO reason and asked for an ID and proof of citizenship..

The AZ law says there has to be a legal stoppage on some legal violation of a law, i.e.. speeding, burglary, domestic dispute, etc before a person can be asked for ID and/or proof of being in the country legally..

So the Federal law as currently written gives a Federal agent much broader room to make a stop and ask for proof [green card etc].. I think I'd prefer the AZ law to the Federal Law.. :cool:

99% of law abiding citizens will likely never be stopped and outright asked for ID or proof of being in the US legally.. JMHO..

[AceTracer]

You keep saying that Katt, but not citing what federal law this is. Can you show it to me?

The 4th Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution ) is pretty clear about this, and there's mountains of case law clearly defining our right to privacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_expectation_of_privacy).


In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) Justice Harlan issued a concurring opinion articulating the two-part test later adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court as the test for determining whether a police or government search is subject to the limitations of the Fourth Amendment: (1) governmental action must contravene an individual's actual, subjective expectation of privacy; (2) and that expectation of privacy must be reasonable, in the sense that society in general would recognize it as such.

To meet the first part of the test, the person from whom the information was obtained must demonstrate that they, in fact, had an actual, subjective expectation that the evidence obtained would not be available to the public. In other words, the person asserting that a search was conducted must show that they kept the evidence in a manner designed to ensure its privacy.

The first part of the test is related to the notion "in plain view". If a person did not undertake reasonable efforts to conceal something from a casual observer (as opposed to a snoop), then no subjective expectation of privacy is assumed. [6]

The second part of the test is analyzed objectively: would society at large deem a person's expectation of privacy to be reasonable? If it is plain that a person did not keep the evidence at issue in a private place, then no search is required to uncover the evidence. For example, there is generally no search when police officers look through garbage because a reasonable person would not expect that items placed in the garbage would necessarily remain private.[7] Similarly, there is no search where officers monitor what phone numbers an individual dials,[8] although the Congress has enacted laws that restrict such monitoring. The Supreme Court has also ruled that there is no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy (and thus no search) when officers hovering in a helicopter 400 feet above a suspect's house conduct surveillance.[9]
Under our current right to privacy laws, a police officer only has a right to search and seizure of items in plain view, or otherwise available to the public. If my ID is in my wallet, and it stays in my wallet, a police officer has no legal right to see my ID. It is within my constitutional right to refuse.

If you have any evidence to contradict this, I'd love to see it.

[AceTracer]

More relevant case law here (http://flexyourrights.org/faq/120).


As a general principle, citizens who are minding their own business are not obligated to "show their papers" to police. In fact, there is no law requiring citizens to carry identification of any kind.

However, there are 24 states with "stop and identify" laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes#States_with_.E2.80.9Cst op-and-identify.E2.80.9D_statutes), and Arizona is one of them, but that only requires you to state your name.


In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), the Supreme Court of the United States held that such laws did not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures or the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The Court understood the Nevada statute to mean that a detained person could satisfy the Nevada law by simply stating his name.

[AceTracer]

Furthermore, the Fifth Amendment applies here as well. Would showing or not showing your identification, or answering questions about your citizenship incriminate you? Can a person therefore not plead the Fifth when asked such questions? Would being required to do so not then be unconstitutional?

[Popycock]

The variations of law can be batted back and forth until hell freezes over.

Since I am a legal citizen of the U.S. and I obey the laws of the land, I

would never hesitate to show my ID to any law enforcement personal that

has been hired and trained to protect me from law breakers.

[Limbo]

Under our current right to privacy laws, a police officer only has a right to search and seizure of items in plain view, or otherwise available to the public. If my ID is in my wallet, and it stays in my wallet, a police officer has no legal right to see my ID. It is within my constitutional right to refuse.

If you have any evidence to contradict this, I'd love to see it.

If you are operating a motor vehicle, you are obliged to show that you have a valid drivers license. You have no constitutional right to refuse to show it to law enforcement. Conveniently, you cannot get a drivers license in Arizona without proving your citizenship or valid immigration status, so that is where most illegals will get nabbed - when stopped by police while operating a motor vehicle.

I believe in most states, if you are just walking down the street minding your own business, you cannot be asked for ID unless you are suspected of having broken the law. Now if you break the law, you can be arrested whether you produce ID or not

[Patt]

You keep saying that Katt, but not citing what federal law this is. Can you show it to me?

The 4th Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution ) is pretty clear about this, and there's mountains of case law clearly defining our right to privacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_expectation_of_privacy).


Under our current right to privacy laws, a police officer only has a right to search and seizure of items in plain view, or otherwise available to the public. If my ID is in my wallet, and it stays in my wallet, a police officer has no legal right to see my ID. It is within my constitutional right to refuse.

If you have any evidence to contradict this, I'd love to see it.

Here's your problem in saying that someone could sue under a traffic stop regarding the 4th Amendment, you could not sue as you would not have standing, i.e., it is unreasonable to expect privacy when stopped for a moving violation as there is the need to have a valid driver's license to operate a motor vehicle.

To sue regarding an alleged Fourth Amendment violation, the plaintiff must have standing. Standing with respect to Fourth Amendment violations requires that the plaintiff have had a legitimate expectation of privacy at the searched location. A legitimate expectation of privacy must meet both the subjective and objective tests of reasonableness. The subjective test requires that the plaintiff actually and genuinely expected privacy, and the objective test requires that given the circumstances, a reasonable person in the same or a similar situation would have expected privacy as well.

[AceTracer]

After further research (gasp! research!) it looks like there's a much simpler reason (http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/04/23/law-profs-on-arizona-immigration-bill-its-unconstitutional/)why this law is unconstitutional.


The Arizona law appears to be “facially unconstitutional,” Manheim said. “States have no power to pass immigration laws because it’s an attribute of foreign affairs. Just as states can’t have their own foreign policies or enter into treaties, they can’t have their own immigration laws either.”

States have long attempted to regulate immigration and in some instances the federal government successfully challenged state laws in court, including in the 1800s, Manheim said.

But federal governments often stay out of the fight. In 1994, for example, California voters passed a law designed to deny social services to undocumented aliens. The law was challenged by private litigants and struck down by a federal court.


Senator Lindsey Graham (R) of South Carolina said during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that he believes the Arizona law is unconstitutional. He did not say why.

“What happened in Arizona is that good people are so afraid of an out-of-control border that they had to resort to a law that I think is unconstitutional,” he said during a hearing with Homeland Security chief and former Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano.

[AceTracer]

If you are operating a motor vehicle, you are obliged to show that you have a valid drivers license. You have no constitutional right to refuse to show it to law enforcement.
There are state laws that require you show proof of valid drivers license if you're operating a motor vehicle, with their own penalties for failing to do so.

The question here is whether states can use state laws to regulate immigration. And the Constitution says you can't.

[Patt]

Word of the day - perspective.

"The law was carefully crafted to parallel already-existing federal law -- which Washington has despicably failed to enforce for years, forcing sovereign states to enact their own measures. But Arizona lawmakers late this week went the extra mile to soothe over the hysteria: They clarified language to make it clearer that no one will be stopped due to race or asked for citizenship proof without first being suspected of some other offense.

Meanwhile, the president of Mexico bitterly complains the Arizona law is an abuse of human rights -- while his own country's laws on illegal immigration are infinitely tougher. Amnesty International just this week, says the Associated Press, "called the abuse of migrants in Mexico a major human rights crisis Wednesday, and accused some officials of turning a blind eye or even participating in the kidnapping, rape and murder of migrants."


Perspective." http://chronicle.augusta.com/opinion/editorials/2010-05-01/todays-word-perspective


FYI - Karl Manheim isn't the one who decides what is and isn't constitutional. Neither is Lindsey Graham. Don't be so quick to give them power that they ultimately do not hold.

[Popycock]

Jesus H. Christ, the technicalities of the law are worthless.

Look at the real picture, the assholes in the white house, now or before,
DON’T give a damn about the average citizen.

Every damn thing they do in D.C. is strictly political and piss on the population.

It’s been getting worse year by year but now it is like a run-away train.

It doesn’t matter what the hell is in the constitution, this administration would
be more than happy to burn it so they can shove shit down our throats or up
our asses. It is nothing but power and politics.

I promise you, they DO NOT give a shit about the individual as a person….
their ONLY concern is getting the vote to keep themselves in power!!!

I am old enough now that I just don’t give a damn anymore. Given the right leader I am ready to lock and load and march on Washington to ‘TAKE BACK OUR GOVERNMENT’.

The bastards that were elected to office by the people have duped the voters. We have been lied to, spit on, flipped off, ignored and called anti-american.

They are the most condescending politicians this country has ever seen.

There are those that will consider me a right-wing kook or fringe lunatic but
hear my words; if you cannot see what is happening in front of our eyes…..
you will have to bear the burden of being too damn ignorant to pitch in and
stop this egregious abuse of our democracy.

[Patt]

I agree with you completely - it's all too obvious that this administration is all about politics and party as opposed to standing on principle.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLgZ1LWLlko

Take this newest Huffington Post piece - seems word has gotten out:
Laying Bare the Myth of "The Left" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/laying-bare-the-myth-of-t_b_585347.html)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/laying-bare-the-myth-of-t_b_585347.html

"Behold, for instance, major environmental groups' attitude toward the Gulf oil spill.

We know that before the disaster, President Obama recklessly pushed to expand offshore drilling. We also know that his Interior Department gave British Petroleum's rig a "categorical exclusion" from environmental scrutiny and, according to The New York Times, "gave permission to BP and dozens of other oil companies to drill in the Gulf without first getting required (environmental) permits." Worse, we know that after the spill, the same Interior Department kept issuing "categorical exclusions" for new Gulf oil operations, and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar still refuses "to rule out continued use of categorical exclusions," as the Denver Post reported (heckuva job, Kenny!).

Undoubtedly, had this been the behavior of a Republican administration, "The Left's" big environmental organizations would be scheduling D.C. protests and calling for firings, if not criminal charges. Yet, somehow, there are no protests. Somehow, there have been almost no calls for the resignation of Salazar, who oversaw this disaster and who, before that, took $323,000 in campaign contributions from energy interests and backed more offshore drilling as a U.S. senator. Somehow, facing environmental apocalypse, there has been mostly silence from "The Left.""

You need only read the link to pick up on "The Left's" hypocrisy regarding Elena Kagen's nomination to the Supreme Court - yeah, it continues.

Even Carville and Chris Matthews are up in the air regarding Obama right now:
James Carville Takes On Obama On Oil Spill: He's 'Risking Everything' With 'Go Along With BP Strategy' (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/21/obama-faces-new-wave-of-c_n_585620.html)

[Limbo]

After further research (gasp! research!) it looks like there's a much simpler reason (http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/04/23/law-profs-on-arizona-immigration-bill-its-unconstitutional/)why this law is unconstitutional.


The Arizona law appears to be “facially unconstitutional,” Manheim said. “States have no power to pass immigration laws because it’s an attribute of foreign affairs. Just as states can’t have their own foreign policies or enter into treaties, they can’t have their own immigration laws either.”

States have long attempted to regulate immigration and in some instances the federal government successfully challenged state laws in court, including in the 1800s, Manheim said.

But federal governments often stay out of the fight. In 1994, for example, California voters passed a law designed to deny social services to undocumented aliens. The law was challenged by private litigants and struck down by a federal court.



According to this reasoning, it would be improper for Arizona law enforcement to hand over anyone suspected of breaking federal law to federal authorities. That would be bizarre.

If you read the Arizona law, that's all it does. It allows, in fact requires, local law enforcement to check to see if someone has broken immigration law (if they are detained for some other reason). If they suspect that someone is not in compliance with federal immigration law, they are handed over to federal authorities for further processing. How does this usurp federal powers?

Sheriff Joe Arpaio has been handing illegals over to ICE (immigration and customs enforcement) for years already. All attempts to stop him have failed. This law makes it mandatory for all law enforcement to do what Arpaio is already doing.

Of course Liberals Judges somewhere may well say the law is unconstitutional with phony reasoning like they have used in the past by reading all kinds of things into the constitution that aren't there.

[AceTracer]

"The law was carefully crafted to parallel already-existing federal law -- which Washington has despicably failed to enforce for years, forcing sovereign states to enact their own measures.
And this is exactly why it's unconstitutional. Unless Arizona wants to secede, it can't enact its own measures.

Arizona lawmakers say this doesn't create any new laws, it just enforces existing ones. Ok, so why are you creating new laws? Just enforce the existing ones.

[AceTracer]

You need to slow down there Patt, you included three things in one post, two of which has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

1. A video with absolutely zero sources. Awesome. You're a fan of videos, huh?

2. There absolutely was protest to Obama's plan to expand offshore drilling. I was incensed about this, and it's one of many criticisms I have about him that you can see many places on this site.

And I love the fact that this very forum had a thread titled Guess What! Obama is Doing Some Good Things! (http://www.bullshit.com/showthread.php?6746-Guess-What!-Obama-is-Doing-Some-Good-Things) referring to his expansion of oil drilling, and now you're criticizing him for doing the same thing? Wow.

And I'm the one that needs perspective?

[AceTracer]

jesus h. Christ, the technicalities of the law are worthless.

Look at the real picture, the assholes in the white house, now or before,
don’t give a damn about the average citizen.

Every damn thing they do in d.c. Is strictly political and piss on the population.

It’s been getting worse year by year but now it is like a run-away train.

It doesn’t matter what the hell is in the constitution, this administration would
be more than happy to burn it so they can shove shit down our throats or up
our asses. It is nothing but power and politics.

I promise you, they do not give a shit about the individual as a person….
Their only concern is getting the vote to keep themselves in power!!!

I am old enough now that i just don’t give a damn anymore. Given the right leader i am ready to lock and load and march on washington to ‘take back our government’.

The bastards that were elected to office by the people have duped the voters. We have been lied to, spit on, flipped off, ignored and called anti-american.

They are the most condescending politicians this country has ever seen.

There are those that will consider me a right-wing kook or fringe lunatic but
hear my words; if you cannot see what is happening in front of our eyes…..
You will have to bear the burden of being too damn ignorant to pitch in and
stop this egregious abuse of our democracy.
The South shall rise again!!

[sunny]

Poppycock and Acer.... gotta tell ya...

I am in love! You all are singing our song!

Now we all agree.... so, who is buying the first round? (or is it ladies pay first?)

[Patt]

And this is exactly why it's unconstitutional. Unless Arizona wants to secede, it can't enact its own measures.

Arizona lawmakers say this doesn't create any new laws, it just enforces existing ones. Ok, so why are you creating new laws? Just enforce the existing ones.

DUH - as opposed to Obama and the Democrats calling for 'Comprehensive Immigration Reform'. No need, just enforce what's there, but Obama, the guy in charge of doing that - won't.

Further, this guy says he won't enforce the law when it comes to deportation of illegals from Arizona, but he will for those coming from Michigan - WTF is up with that?

Arizona's new law targeting illegal immigration is not "good government," a top Department of Homeland Security official said in Chicago (http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/neighborhoods.html?region=1435491) Wednesday.

John Morton, who heads U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said his agency will not necessarily process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona officials. The best way to reduce illegal immigration is through a comprehensive federal approach, not a patchwork of state laws, he said.

"I don't think the Arizona law, or laws like it, are the solution," Morton said during a visit to the Tribune editorial board.

While Americans frustrated over illegal immigration urge the Obama administration to do more, officials also have been criticized by Latino activists over the increase in immigrants deported back to their home countries. Despite the outcry, Morton said his agency intended to step up enforcement in places like Illinois. http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/05/homeland-security-official-weighs-in-on-arizona-law.html

I agree with Jeff Sessions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfy6cTOuVhU&feature=player_embedded

[Popycock]

Even though both, the number one asshole in the white house and John Morton

took an oath to uphold the laws of the United States, it’s readily apparent that

the Marxists regime that is misleading this country has an agenda that is

pushing forward with no regard for any laws or anybody’s safety.

They may as well dismantle ICE and send Morton to Kenya so he can be a

house-keeper for Obama’s bro.

Get rid of the border patrol, open the gates, the border patrol officers can sit

behind a desk and sign up the illegals for all the wonderful freebies provided

by what few people are still working. Hell, don’t stop there, let’s get those

Messican trucks up here to run up and down the boulevard. I’m sure they’d all

pass inspection with no problem. (What the hell am I talking about, they wouldn’t

have to be inspected, only the American ones).


It shouldn’t take long before we see some Tijuana taxis in downtown Phoenix.

Maybe a few push-carts selling questionable roadkill to unsuspecting tourists.

Even require Americans to learn Spanish. That’ll make it easier for them to

assimilate.

Don’t forget, the’ powers that be’ are much smarter than us, they know what is

best for the nation. After all, that’s why the deceitful, underhanded lying bastards

got elected.

[MrRee]

And how about the little grade school girl who told Obama's wife that she is "worried" because her mother is an illegal and neither have any papers to be here, so she worries about them being deported!
Obama's Ho told them not to worry and made it a point to help them.
Hell, they are allready useing enough free shit taxpayers have to pay for them.

I say send both their asses back!

[Patt]

You need to slow down there Patt, you included three things in one post, two of which has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

1. A video with absolutely zero sources. Awesome. You're a fan of videos, huh?

2. There absolutely was protest to Obama's plan to expand offshore drilling. I was incensed about this, and it's one of many criticisms I have about him that you can see many places on this site.

And I love the fact that this very forum had a thread titled Guess What! Obama is Doing Some Good Things! (http://www.bullshit.com/showthread.php?6746-Guess-What%21-Obama-is-Doing-Some-Good-Things) referring to his expansion of oil drilling, and now you're criticizing him for doing the same thing? Wow.

And I'm the one that needs perspective?

The point of the pieces I posted, which of course you're spinning away from, is that the Democrats and Obama are all about their party and not about the principles. After all, how can anyone who says that they are for the disadvantaged and the middle class, as the Democrats say they are, and yet not care to protect those same classes from illegal immigrants who are first here to take the jobs they would have and second, decreasing their personal safety?

And yes, you do need perspective, if you can't see that. :D

Psst - I wasn't around for that thread. A little lookie at when I joined BS would do ya!

[AceTracer]

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. There's no right or wrong there, so there's really nothing for me to reply to.

It really frustrates me when I'm accused of "spinning". If anything, I'm always the one trying to keep a thread on track and prevent straw man arguments.

[Patt]

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. There's no right or wrong there, so there's really nothing for me to reply to.

Why am I always being accused of "spinning away from" things? If anything, I'm always the one trying to keep a thread on track.

I'd have to disagree with your slam at conservatives below which can be found in the current Global Warming thread:


This surprises you?

Selectively acknowledging anything that conforms to their theories, however far-fetched, and rejecting everything else is the core of the conservative playbook.



I don't care if it makes no sense that Obama would be president if he wasn't born here. This one sketchy website says otherwise, and I believe them!
150 years of research strongly suggesting evolution is bullshit; look at this video with Kirk Cameron!
I don't care about the result of hundreds of other polls; I choose only to acknowledge this one number from this one conservative pollster!

It's the death of science in America; let's not take measurements and base theories on them, let's form theories and base measurements on them.

Yeah - the topic of your post is science. How it proves AGW exists is rather hard to find....seems to me it might harken back to a thread you recently engaged in regarding mathematics and how to read linear charts.

But then, we all do the round about when it serves our purpose, sometimes. Hell, I'm NOT above it when there is another point or two that bolsters my argument and that I'd like to bring to the forefront. Just like the two other pieces that prove my point regarding Democrats being more about party than about the principles they say they foster within that party.

[AceTracer]

It baffles me that you still think I have at any point tried to prove global warming is caused by man. Simply baffled.

The post was a reply to Carrot, who said it surprised him that you refuse to acknowledge established measurements from a scientific organization but want us to acknowledge some dude's numbers on a fringe website. And my reply was...that doesn't surprise me at all. It's par for the course around here.

Feel free to "clean up the joint" with "my carcass" though. I liked that post, even if it didn't help prove your point.

[Patt]

Like I said - you threw the first partisan barb ---- NOT me. :D But, I'm not willing to let even one pass without letting you know you shouldn't have done that. It only starts flames --- big ones --- NOT needed, I don't think.

[AceTracer]

My "partisan barb" was a statement of fact. At no point did I attack anyone, nor responded to your attack.

But I'm sure you're right, that was the first time in that entire thread anyone made a "partisan barb".

[Patt]

The post was a reply to Carrot, who said it surprised him that you refuse to acknowledge established measurements from a scientific organization but want us to acknowledge some dude's numbers on a fringe website. And my reply was...that doesn't surprise me at all. It's par for the course around here.

The 'DUDE' is well respected in the Climate arena and was using the very same numbers used by the IPCC. That was the point. You said it somewhere in that post --- oh yeah, here, in your snarky comment at the end:

It's the death of science in America; let's not take measurements and base theories on them, let's form theories and base measurements on them.

That's exactly what the emails proved that the AGW proponents did - ClimateGate - the Hockey Stick - removal of the Middle Ages Warming Period. Trying to say that those scientists are conservatives and therefore subscribe to your definition of conservative thought, is really a bit much. The video showed you that if you follow the science to where ever it leads, then you'll find that carbon and green house gases aren't a problem to the planet at all - at least not to the extent that the alarmist AGW proponents and the Treaty hounds say that it is and there is no intervention, by any means, that we, as humans, can do about global warming.

[AceTracer]

Yeah, that was bullshit too. Any scientist that hides, fabricates, or distorts data to prove their point, for or against, doesn't deserve to be a scientist anymore.

Now, I don't mean to accuse you of "spinning away" from the topic, but this thread is about Arizona's immigration law. Can we get back to that?

You've made it clear that you believe Obama isn't doing enough to fight illegal immigration. Great. That's your opinion and I'm sorry you feel that way, but unconstitutional state laws aren't going to change this. Hopefully you'll make your voice heard at the next election.

[Patt]

Yeah, that was bullshit too. It's not right when anyone does it.

Now, I don't mean to accuse you of "spinning away" from the topic, but this thread is about Arizona's immigration law. Can we get back to that? You've made it clear that you believe Obama isn't doing enough to fight illegal immigration.

Great. That's your opinion; I'm sorry you feel that way; unconstitutional state laws aren't going to change this. Hopefully you'll make your voice heard at the next election.

All I can say is....

http://10.media.tumblr.com/FsUBAEQ50q2w3yrspgLhGBUlo1_500.jpg

And add that the Arizona law should stay - until the Fed's protect the border - ahem - comprehensively. :D

[juswanano]

From the site: "I think that anyone here who is not a citizen (student visa, temp worker, etc) must have these papers on them at ALL times. So it sounds like the only ones w/o any documents shouldn't be here anyway."

Popycock:

What you are failing to take into consideration is that many have already been beaten and arrested until they can prove they are a US citizen. There was an incident that stated a young man had been severly beaten only due to his color... guess what, his family has been here for generations and now the particular police department and city are under a heavy lawsuit.

Hope you are white... and legal... but, do not forget,, unless the law applies to everyone it is unconstitutional.

Why does no one complain about the white illegal immigrants? What about the FOB's that come over 1000's at a time? Can you explain this? Please?

In Arizonat t he majority of illegal aliens are not white, they are Mexican . If any color of person be it brown , white , black , Asian , Indian , or purple people eater are stopped by an Arizona law enforcement officer for breaking the law and can not provide proof that they are in the USA legally they will be turned over to the ICE. it's that simple.

And how about the little grade school girl who told Obama's wife that she is "worried" because her mother is an illegal and neither have any papers to be here, so she worries about them being deported!
Obama's Ho told them not to worry and made it a point to help them.
Hell, they are allready useing enough free shit taxpayers have to pay for them.

I say send both their asses back!

The little girl is probably an anchor baby . The news report doesn't report anything past mrs. Obama stating that 'we all need to work on making it KO for the girls mama to be here illegally' or and making a joke about ' lets hope the papers the kid says her mama doesn't have is the Washington Post'

[Popycock]

From Juswanano:

Popycock:

What you are failing to take into consideration is that many have already been beaten and arrested until they can prove they are a US citizen. There was an incident that stated a young man had been severly beaten only due to his color... guess what, his family has been here for generations and now the particular police department and city are under a heavy lawsuit.

Let me say this about that;

I have posted earlier that isolated cases no doubt exist.
But, if you want to sit behind your computer and tell me that there are many people that have been beaten and arrested until they could prove they are citizens of the U.S.........BULLSHIT!! show me the reports, the stories in print, the facts.

The only posibility of your statement being true is if your definition of 'many' is 1 or 2.

There are more crooked preachers, lawyers or politicians than there are crooked cops.

Do we have crooked cops?.....Damn right (unfortunately).

But you try to make it sound like most cops beat up people and harass them until they can prove their innocence.

Obviously you're a liberal at heart and your main objective is to perpetuate the ideology of left wing kooks.

[Patt]

Wanno is right about that beating - they had footage of it and showed it on TV - kicks to the head and torso while on the ground and in custody. Seems there had been a break in and two hispanics were caught, however, they weren't the hispanics involved in the robbery. Consequently, there is legal action.

But, that's as it should be - criminal police conduct, in this case, excessive force, should always go forward. Immigration status, be damned.

Now - on to a very interesting piece out of Washington state today --- an illegal alien, deported previously 9 times, with a long criminal history, is caught in the United States, once again, and caught in the act of a vicious rape:
*Update: Illegal alien rape suspect has been deported nine times (http://www.examiner.com/x-35821-Immigration-Reform-Examiner%7Ey2010m5d23-Update-Illegal-alien-rape-suspect-has-been-deported-nine-times)

And, closer to MY location, from 2008, which of course would concern me personally as I'm not one to want illegal aliens in this nation for whatever reason they may have:
Illegal Alien Caught In Rape Of 10 Year Old Girl (http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2008/05/21/illegal-alien-caught-in-rape-of-10-year-old-girl/)

And, earlier this month:
Another illegal alien caught raping a 12-year-old Va. girl (http://www.examiner.com/x-5919-Norfolk-Crime-Examiner%7Ey2009m5d3-Another-illegal-alien-caught-raping-a-12yearold-Va-girl)

[AceTracer]

Now - on to a very interesting piece out of Washington state today --- an illegal alien, deported previously 9 times, with a long criminal history, is caught in the United States, once again, and caught in the act of a vicious rape:
*Update: Illegal alien rape suspect has been deported nine times (http://www.examiner.com/x-35821-Immigration-Reform-Examiner%7Ey2010m5d23-Update-Illegal-alien-rape-suspect-has-been-deported-nine-times)
They need to fast track that guy to citizenship so they can let him rot in prison. As long as he stays illegal he has a "get out of jail free" card.

[mooreed2323]

http://www.borderinvasionpics.com/1006Vid1.html


BUT acording to the Dept. of Homeland Security and Pres. Obamma, the southern border is more secure than ever.

Of course, they are NOT allowed to view the above video.

http://img02.imagefra.me/img/img02/8/7/9/mooreed2323/f_huy6xqin472m_c7828ec.jpg

[AceTracer]

The federal government has filed suit (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/07/09/ellen-ratner-arizona-immigration-law-phoenix-tuscon-tony-snow-bush-department/) against Arizona. It won't be long before this thing is declared unconstitutional.

[LedZap]

Why would you consider it unconstitutional?

[AceTracer]

Why would you consider it unconstitutional?
We've discussed this ad naseum. The Arizona immigration law attempts to supersede the federal government, violating the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

[LedZap]

We've discussed this ad naseum. The Arizona immigration law attempts to supersede the federal government, violating the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

Doesn't the Fed law say you have to arrest illegal aliens ?

[Limbo]

Doesn't the Fed law say you have to arrest illegal aliens ?

Dems shooting themselves in the foot again, and just before the elections in November!

Americans Oppose Federal Suit Against Ariz. Immigration Law (http://www.gallup.com/poll/141209/Americans-Oppose-Federal-Suit-Against-Ariz-Immigration-Law.aspx)

The numbers are even worse when you look at polls of likely voters, as opposed to the Gallup poll that polled all adults.

Obama seems to think that he can keep flipping the bird at American voters without consequences. What a delusional fool. I for one can hardly wait to see the look on the faces of all the Democrat talking heads who are in denial right now about what's going to happen in November, especially Obama himself.

[Rec]

I don't care what party wins, the Independents, a third party, but I hope that every single one of the Obama's supporters and himself gets the royal boot all the
way down Pennsylvania Avenue. lol

[LedZap]

I really don't see where the Arizona law (very similar to the Calif law) supersedes the Fed law.

[peepers]

I have to say I stand behing arizona.

The federal government isn't going to do anything about it illegal immagrants anytime soon.

[Limbo]

I really don't see where the Arizona law (very similar to the Calif law) supersedes the Fed law.


Of course it doesn't supersede federal law. It allows for local authorities to hand over suspected illegals to the feds so that the feds can process them. How can it be unconstitutional for local police to hand people suspected of breaking federal law over to federal authorities? Ridiculous.

This lawsuit is just a delay tactic to stop the law from going into effect by dragging this out through the courts for years.

[peepers]

http://mentalfloss.cachefly.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/statemapredbluer512.png

Red being conservative, and blue being Liberal

As you can see, Arizona being a conservative state isn't going to get any federal backup if a large portion of the government is controlled by liberals. I'm surprised they've gotten this far with this law.

[Patt]

Doesn't the Fed law say you have to arrest illegal aliens ?

I do believe, although I may be wrong, the Federal law says, when confronted with an illegal alien, they must detain and DEPORT that person - not merely arrest them.

[Patt]

Then why hasn't the Obama Administration brought suit against Rhode Island (http://www.boston.com/news/local/rhode_island/articles/2010/07/06/ri_troopers_embrace_firm_immigration_role/)....?


But in Rhode Island, illegal immigrants face a far greater penalty: deportation.

From Woonsocket to Westerly, the troopers patrolling the nation’s smallest state are reporting all illegal immigrants they encounter, even on routine stops such as speeding, to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, known as ICE.

After all, based on the lawsuit brought by Holder, what Arizona suggests is exactly what has already been done in Rhode Island. Why does one state get a pass and yet another doesn't?

Isn't this cherry picking to impress a voting block that is slipping in the poles prior to a mid term election?

I would submit that it is.

[yee-haw]

Wow, a real honest to goodness legal immigrant I thought you were a figment of some one wit a great imagination .

I approve of this post!!