# Judge blocks parts of Arizona immigration law



## KMAN

I wonder how many of these people protesting are illegals...  Pretty crazy that we have laws making illegal immigration illegal and then don't enforce them. 

Judge blocks parts of Arizona immigration law - Yahoo! News


----------



## Moon

That's unfortunate.


----------



## Immanuel

Judge blocks parts of Arizona immigration law - Yahoo! News



> PHOENIX  A federal judge on Wednesday blocked the most controversial parts of Arizona's immigration law from taking effect, delivering a last-minute victory to opponents of the crackdown.
> 
> The overall law will still take effect Thursday, but without the provisions that angered opponents  *including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws*.
> 
> The judge also put on hold parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places.



I am still not sure how I feel about this law, but if an officer can not check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws, what good is this law?

Immie


----------



## Wry Catcher

The judge issued a temporary injunction preventing the law from going into effect at midnight tonight.  

As a side issue, the "attrition through enforcement" experiment seems to be putting the economy of Arizona in the tank.  Small businesses are failing, apartment complexes are emptying and the once red-hot housing market is now stone cold and filled by REO's and short sales.

Such is the consequence of emotion based populist politics, where personal ambition leads and critically thinking is absent, and where governors and legislators put ideology before people.


----------



## Navy1960

The judges  ruling was more or less a washing of the hands  of the issue,  but  the stay was  on  making  it a requirement to check status.  However that does not mean an officer cannot check status if that person has not been arrested, if this was so then  the entire ICE database that the Federal Govt. shares with state and local law enforcement  would have to be dismantled. The other portion that was stayed  was  the portion that required documentation. Basically SB-1070 has been rendered mute  as a result of this of this stay for the time being leaving  Arizona back where it started, where  the Federal Govt. looks the other way, while the   drugs, traffic in human beings,  murder,  and  American job loss continues.


----------



## topspin

good no ghestapo tactics
 Remind me again how many Bush deported?


----------



## Tank




----------



## Tank




----------



## Wry Catcher

Tthe "attrition through enforcement" experiment seems to be putting the economy of Arizona in the tank. Small businesses are failing, apartment complexes are emptying and the once red-hot housing market is now stone cold and filled by REO's and short sales.

Such is the consequence of emotion based populist politics, where personal ambition leads and critically thinking is absent; where governors and legislators act in their own self-interest and where ideology rules and pragmatic solutions die.


----------



## Bullfighter

The judge ruled that there can be no limit placed on how many invaders an American can shoot crossing illegally into the US. The "five Mexican limit" is now lifted and all Americans can enjoy flooding the streets with salsa. 

And in addition, the new Rodney King rule encourages police officers to use their batons to beat the crap out of invaders before taking them into custody. This will send a clear message to third world monkeys out to live off of American taxpayers. 

If only Lord if only......!


----------



## Tank




----------



## The Infidel

Another activist decision....


----------



## blu

the bill is basically useless now.


----------



## blu

I can see tank is going to contribute useful and well thought out responses


----------



## blu

The Infidel said:


> Another activist decision....



is an activist decision anything you don't agree with?


----------



## Bullfighter

Tank said:


>



If only they would learn to use toilets!!


----------



## blu

I guess the plan worked though, over 100k illegals already left the state before it was even put into effect.


----------



## topspin

meanwhile cons have deported Zero


----------



## Navy1960

Wry Catcher said:


> Tthe "attrition through enforcement" experiment seems to be putting the economy of Arizona in the tank. Small businesses are failing, apartment complexes are emptying and the once red-hot housing market is now stone cold and filled by REO's and short sales.
> 
> Such is the consequence of emotion based populist politics, where personal ambition leads and critically thinking is absent; where governors and legislators act in their own self-interest and where ideology rules and pragmatic solutions die.



Wry,  I have news for you, our economy  has been in the tank and  with the collapse  of the  Housing  Market  those  illegal  Aliens  that  were used as a cheap source of  labor to build  all those homes  and apartments  during the boom  are now fining it harder to find that same work due to the lack of  homes and apartments to build here and the sheer number of  forclosures  on the  market here. 

Yes,  on both sides of the issue  heated talk solves nothing, however  it does make sense  to enforce  laws  from both an economic standpoint and a safety  standpoint.  I find it  a terrible shame that people  would look the other way and allow  licensed  slavery in this nation  when if we applied practical solutions to the issue  then perhaps there wouldd be no need for court battles.


----------



## Bullfighter

blu said:


> I guess the plan worked though, over 100k illegals already left the state before it was even put into effect.



But can't Americans shoot them if they return?


----------



## chanel

I guess driving without a drivers license or using a stolen one in AZ is now legal. Or only if you no habla ingles.

Well they won. Might as well sign AZ over to their "rightful owners" now.


----------



## Bullfighter

I heard the Mexicans are raping the judge in celibration.


----------



## KMAN

Wry Catcher said:


> The judge issued a temporary injunction preventing the law from going into effect at midnight tonight.
> 
> As a side issue, the "attrition through enforcement" experiment seems to be putting the economy of Arizona in the tank.  Small businesses are failing, apartment complexes are emptying and the once red-hot housing market is now stone cold and filled by REO's and short sales.
> 
> Such is the consequence of emotion based populist politics, where personal ambition leads and critically thinking is absent, and where governors and legislators put ideology before people.




I guess Obama's economy has nothing to do with it....LOL


----------



## Jeremy

Not surprised.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Navy1960 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tthe "attrition through enforcement" experiment seems to be putting the economy of Arizona in the tank. Small businesses are failing, apartment complexes are emptying and the once red-hot housing market is now stone cold and filled by REO's and short sales.
> 
> Such is the consequence of emotion based populist politics, where personal ambition leads and critically thinking is absent; where governors and legislators act in their own self-interest and where ideology rules and pragmatic solutions die.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry,  I have news for you, our economy  has been in the tank and  with the collapse  of the  Housing  Market  those  illegal  Aliens  that  were used as a cheap source of  labor to build  all those homes  and apartments  during the boom  are now fining it harder to find that same work due to the lack of  homes and apartments to build here and the sheer number of  forclosures  on the  market here.
> 
> Yes,  on both sides of the issue  heated talk solves nothing, however  it does make sense  to enforce  laws  from both an economic standpoint and a safety  standpoint.  I find it  a terrible shame that people  would look the other way and allow  licensed  slavery in this nation  when if we applied practical solutions to the issue  then perhaps there wouldd be no need for court battles.
Click to expand...


I could not agree more.  Pagmatic solutions are necessary; too many times ideology prevents not only new ideas but also the debate on new ideas.


----------



## Misty

blu said:


> I guess the plan worked though, over 100k illegals already left the state before it was even put into effect.



There is still the chance it will be overturned. 

This is all part of the plan to make Hispanics think Obama is on their side. 

He probably thought up the law. They are all
such liars. 

This is bigger than Arizona. It's the dividing of or the union of Mexico and united states. 

But we the people are merely pawns. 

The ruling class has it all figured out already and will manipulate us like rats in a maze. Making us think our votes or opinions count.


----------



## Wicked Jester

Wry Catcher said:


> Tthe "attrition through enforcement" experiment seems to be putting the economy of Arizona in the tank. Small businesses are failing, apartment complexes are emptying and the once red-hot housing market is now stone cold and filled by REO's and short sales.
> 
> Such is the consequence of emotion based populist politics, where personal ambition leads and critically thinking is absent; where governors and legislators act in their own self-interest and where ideology rules and pragmatic solutions die.


Ya' mean like the emotion based populist politics of sanctuary cities, where personal ambition leads and critically thinking is absent; where mayors and city councils act in their own self-interest and where ideology rules and pragmatic solutions die?


----------



## Navy1960

I'll give the same answer  I gave  in another thread to your  post  Wry,  Our state's economy , especially  the housing market  has  collapsed  as a result of the financial crisis. Those same homes and apartments you were speaking of were  for the most part built with the use of cheap illegal labor. With the lack of  new homes and apartments  being built the construction trades  suffer and  those needed to staff  it , namely those same illegal Aliens. 

It makes complete sense to enforce  immigration laws,   for  economic reasons and  safety reasons, more so than to ignore them and use resources in a court room that would be better used in finding  solutions to this issue.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

AZ discriminates against legal citizens plain and simple.

Why should any legal citizen show any ID?  If I were in AZ I'd enter a Federal building, refuse to show papers then sue for discrimination.

Goose meet gander


----------



## Foxfyre

Yes, the Judge, as liberal judges often do, went the PC route instead of concluding that the AZ law offers nothing that is not already in Federal law--you know, the Federal law that the Feds won't seriously enforce.

So hopefully the next step is an appeal to a higher court all the way to the SCOTUS.   And the sooner the better.

I've been reading though that Arizona will request the Judge revisit the case and will bring new ammunition to that process.  Since it was a block and not a ruling of being unconstitutional, that is a possibility still.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Wicked Jester said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tthe "attrition through enforcement" experiment seems to be putting the economy of Arizona in the tank. Small businesses are failing, apartment complexes are emptying and the once red-hot housing market is now stone cold and filled by REO's and short sales.
> 
> Such is the consequence of emotion based populist politics, where personal ambition leads and critically thinking is absent; where governors and legislators act in their own self-interest and where ideology rules and pragmatic solutions die.
> 
> 
> 
> Ya' mean like the emotion based populist politics of sanctuary cities, where personal ambition leads and critically thinking is absent; where mayors and city councils act in their own self-interest and where ideology rules and pragmatic solutions die?
Click to expand...


Exactly.  Laws should make sense and be enforced.  Emotion, bias, prejudice ought not influence legislators, locally or nationally.  Sadly it does.
BTW, many 'sanctuaries' are churches - do you have an opinion on that activity?
[btw, what happended to the Dodgers?  Hopefully they can cool SD and by next WE the Giants wil be where they belong, on top in the West].


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Wry Catcher said:


> Tthe "attrition through enforcement" experiment seems to be putting the economy of Arizona in the tank. Small businesses are failing, apartment complexes are emptying and the once red-hot housing market is now stone cold and filled by REO's and short sales.
> 
> Such is the consequence of emotion based populist politics, where personal ambition leads and critically thinking is absent; where governors and legislators act in their own self-interest and where ideology rules and pragmatic solutions die.



How astute!

AZ is the only state with "small businesses are failing, apartment complexes are emptying and the once red-hot housing market is now stone cold and filled by REO's and short sales."  Why didn't anyone else see it?

Freddo Corleone has nothing on you!  You're smart!  Not like everyone says, like dumb!

Do you want respect too Wry for being so astute?


----------



## AmericanFirst

topspin said:


> meanwhile cons have deported Zero


Meanwhile dimwits support everything that is wrong with and for this country, idiot.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Navy1960 said:


> I'll give the same answer  I gave  in another thread to your  post  Wry,  Our state's economy , especially  the housing market  has  collapsed  as a result of the financial crisis. Those same homes and apartments you were speaking of were  for the most part built with the use of cheap illegal labor. With the lack of  new homes and apartments  being built the construction trades  suffer and  those needed to staff  it , namely those same illegal Aliens.
> 
> It makes complete sense to enforce  immigration laws,   for  economic reasons and  safety reasons, more so than to ignore them and use resources in a court room that would be better used in finding  solutions to this issue.



Again, I agree.  The solution lies somewhere between 1070 and Amnesty, but politics, prejudice and emotion (as well as personal ambition) interfere.


----------



## Wicked Jester

Wry Catcher said:


> Tthe "attrition through enforcement" experiment seems to be putting the economy of Arizona in the tank. Small businesses are failing, apartment complexes are emptying and the once red-hot housing market is now stone cold and filled by REO's and short sales.
> 
> Such is the consequence of emotion based populist politics, where personal ambition leads and critically thinking is absent; where governors and legislators act in their own self-interest and where ideology rules and pragmatic solutions die.


And why would you care if the "experiment" seems to be putting the economy of Arizona in the tank?

After all, you're one of the loons who was so vociferously advocating a boycott that would put the economy of Arizona in the tank. Where small businesses would fail. Apartments would empty and the once red hot housing market would go stone cold resulting in REO's and short sales.

Ya' should be celebrating, ya' hypocritical liberal loon!

Christ, liberals are fucking idiots!


----------



## AmericanFirst

The federal judge is wrong. Another example of the dimwits using the courts to legislate. Arizona should ignore the judges ruling based on it is stupid.


----------



## chanel

The boycott may have helped as well.  Now that's something they can celebrate! Anti-americanism by the left = patriotic dissent!


----------



## Biggles

The part of the law regarding the mandate that officers determine if a person is in Arizona/America legally has been stayed.  However, it does not stop officers from doing so voluntarily or by department orders.  The Sheriffs in counties along the border are extremely disappointed in this ruling and are disappointed at the complete lack of care and effort by the Obama Administration to stop the flow of illegals into America.  

Today is the lighting of the fuse of the American Revolution Ver2.  80% of Americans support the law as written.  80% of Americans are fed up with the porous border allowing illegals to come into America, eating up our tax dollars, distributing drugs, killing Americans, raping Americans, kidnapping Americans, destroying America.

In November, the progressives will be thrown out of Congress.  My only fear is the rumor going around DC comes true, that the lame-duck liberals and Obama will conspire to pass legislation to give all 20 million illegals complete amnesty.  If today lit the fuse, that action will explode America into chaos.  Americans will revolt and take back control of America.  Perhaps the amnesty is what is needed to rid America of the progressive plot once and for all.  Because right now, the progressives are "nudging" along.


----------



## B. Kidd

Interestingly enough, the judge did not put an injunction against the ban on sanctuary cities part of the Az. law.


----------



## Wry Catcher

AmericanFirst said:


> The federal judge is wrong. Another example of the dimwits using the courts to legislate. Arizona should ignore the judges ruling based on it is stupid.



Nullification, what a novel 'idea'.  Wonder why no state ever tried it?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Wry Catcher said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tthe "attrition through enforcement" experiment seems to be putting the economy of Arizona in the tank. Small businesses are failing, apartment complexes are emptying and the once red-hot housing market is now stone cold and filled by REO's and short sales.
> 
> Such is the consequence of emotion based populist politics, where personal ambition leads and critically thinking is absent; where governors and legislators act in their own self-interest and where ideology rules and pragmatic solutions die.
> 
> 
> 
> Ya' mean like the emotion based populist politics of sanctuary cities, where personal ambition leads and critically thinking is absent; where mayors and city councils act in their own self-interest and where ideology rules and pragmatic solutions die?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.  Laws should make sense and be enforced.  Emotion, bias, prejudice ought not influence legislators, locally or nationally.  Sadly it does.
> BTW, many 'sanctuaries' are churches - do you have an opinion on that activity?
> [btw, what happended to the Dodgers?  Hopefully they can cool SD and by next WE the Giants wil be where they belong, on top in the West].
Click to expand...


Wow. I can't believe that exchange


----------



## WillowTree

Tank said:


>


----------



## Wry Catcher

Wicked Jester said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tthe "attrition through enforcement" experiment seems to be putting the economy of Arizona in the tank. Small businesses are failing, apartment complexes are emptying and the once red-hot housing market is now stone cold and filled by REO's and short sales.
> 
> Such is the consequence of emotion based populist politics, where personal ambition leads and critically thinking is absent; where governors and legislators act in their own self-interest and where ideology rules and pragmatic solutions die.
> 
> 
> 
> And why would you care if the "experiment" seems to be putting the economy of Arizona in the tank?
> 
> After all, you're one of the loons who was so vociferously advocating a boycott that would put the economy of Arizona in the tank. Where small businesses would fail. Apartments would empty and the once red hot housing market would go stone cold resulting in REO's and short sales.
> 
> Ya' should be celebrating, ya' hypocritical liberal loon!
> 
> Christ, liberals are fucking idiots!
Click to expand...


Well, it's too early to celebrate.  But if the people of Arizona vote out those who acted without thought and replace them with pragmatic leaders it will be time for celebration.


----------



## Biggles

Wry Catcher said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll give the same answer  I gave  in another thread to your  post  Wry,  Our state's economy , especially  the housing market  has  collapsed  as a result of the financial crisis. Those same homes and apartments you were speaking of were  for the most part built with the use of cheap illegal labor. With the lack of  new homes and apartments  being built the construction trades  suffer and  those needed to staff  it , namely those same illegal Aliens.
> 
> It makes complete sense to enforce  immigration laws,   for  economic reasons and  safety reasons, more so than to ignore them and use resources in a court room that would be better used in finding  solutions to this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I agree.  The solution lies somewhere between 1070 and Amnesty, but politics, prejudice and emotion (as well as personal ambition) interfere.
Click to expand...


The solution is enforcement of the federal law, border troops, border fence, and the deportation of every illegal in America.  Amnesty cannot be even near any solution.


----------



## Angelhair

Federal Judge Susan Bolton granted an injunction against key sections of SB 1070 today, hours before the controversial new law was to take effect.

The judges decision gave the federal government and opponents  a major legal victory.

Parts of the new law will still take effect Thursday.

However, the major provisions that drew the opposition of immigrant rights groups, the ACLU and the Justice Department will not go into effect.

Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled.

There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law), Bolton ruled. By enforcing this statute, Arizona would impose a distinct, unusual and extraordinary burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose.

The provisions that were enjoined include sections that required officers to check a persons immigration status while enforcing other laws.

Also blocked from going into effect is the part of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times,.

The provision making it a crime for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places was also enjoined.

Injunctions against a state law going into effect must meet a high hurdle . Those seeking an injunction must show irreparable harm and a likelihood they will prevail at trial. The Plaintiffs succeed.

Full text of Judge Boltons ruling

SB 1070 enjoined by federal judge - View From Baja Arizona


----------



## Biggles

The part of the law regarding the mandate that officers determine if a person is in Arizona/America legally has been stayed. However, it does not stop officers from doing so voluntarily or by department orders. The Sheriffs in counties along the border are extremely disappointed in this ruling and are disappointed at the complete lack of care and effort by the Obama Administration to stop the flow of illegals into America.

Today is the lighting of the fuse of the American Revolution Ver2. 80% of Americans support the law as written. 80% of Americans are fed up with the porous border allowing illegals to come into America, eating up our tax dollars, distributing drugs, killing Americans, raping Americans, kidnapping Americans, destroying America.

In November, the progressives will be thrown out of Congress. My only fear is the rumor going around DC comes true, that the lame-duck liberals and Obama will conspire to pass legislation to give all 20 million illegals complete amnesty. If today lit the fuse, that action will explode America into chaos. Americans will revolt and take back control of America. Perhaps the amnesty is what is needed to rid America of the progressive plot once and for all. Because right now, the progressives are "nudging" along.


----------



## WillowTree

Biggles said:


> The part of the law regarding the mandate that officers determine if a person is in Arizona/America legally has been stayed. However, it does not stop officers from doing so voluntarily or by department orders. The Sheriffs in counties along the border are extremely disappointed in this ruling and are disappointed at the complete lack of care and effort by the Obama Administration to stop the flow of illegals into America.
> 
> Today is the lighting of the fuse of the American Revolution Ver2. 80% of Americans support the law as written. 80% of Americans are fed up with the porous border allowing illegals to come into America, eating up our tax dollars, distributing drugs, killing Americans, raping Americans, kidnapping Americans, destroying America.
> 
> In November, the progressives will be thrown out of Congress. My only fear is the rumor going around DC comes true, that the lame-duck liberals and Obama will conspire to pass legislation to give all 20 million illegals complete amnesty. If today lit the fuse, that action will explode America into chaos. Americans will revolt and take back control of America. Perhaps the amnesty is what is needed to rid America of the progressive plot once and for all. Because right now, the progressives are "nudging" along.



yes but the anti American demonRats are in charge and they need the votes. so suck it up.


----------



## Biggles

Where is the Obama Administration lawsuit against sanctuary cities?  These cities are in direct violation of federal law.  The BO Administration is a hypocritical bunch of liars.  I am fed up with their plan for the destruction of America.


----------



## Wicked Jester

Wry Catcher said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tthe "attrition through enforcement" experiment seems to be putting the economy of Arizona in the tank. Small businesses are failing, apartment complexes are emptying and the once red-hot housing market is now stone cold and filled by REO's and short sales.
> 
> Such is the consequence of emotion based populist politics, where personal ambition leads and critically thinking is absent; where governors and legislators act in their own self-interest and where ideology rules and pragmatic solutions die.
> 
> 
> 
> And why would you care if the "experiment" seems to be putting the economy of Arizona in the tank?
> 
> After all, you're one of the loons who was so vociferously advocating a boycott that would put the economy of Arizona in the tank. Where small businesses would fail. Apartments would empty and the once red hot housing market would go stone cold resulting in REO's and short sales.
> 
> Ya' should be celebrating, ya' hypocritical liberal loon!
> 
> Christ, liberals are fucking idiots!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, it's too early to celebrate.  But if the people of Arizona vote out those who acted without thought and replace them with pragmatic leaders it will be time for celebration.
Click to expand...

*Translation:*

"Once again, I stepped on my lil' limp liberal needledick, and fully proved that arguing with liberals is akin to arguing with idiots as the scurrilous Glenn Beck has claimed"

LMAO!


----------



## Biggles

WillowTree said:


> Biggles said:
> 
> 
> 
> The part of the law regarding the mandate that officers determine if a person is in Arizona/America legally has been stayed. However, it does not stop officers from doing so voluntarily or by department orders. The Sheriffs in counties along the border are extremely disappointed in this ruling and are disappointed at the complete lack of care and effort by the Obama Administration to stop the flow of illegals into America.
> 
> Today is the lighting of the fuse of the American Revolution Ver2. 80% of Americans support the law as written. 80% of Americans are fed up with the porous border allowing illegals to come into America, eating up our tax dollars, distributing drugs, killing Americans, raping Americans, kidnapping Americans, destroying America.
> 
> In November, the progressives will be thrown out of Congress. My only fear is the rumor going around DC comes true, that the lame-duck liberals and Obama will conspire to pass legislation to give all 20 million illegals complete amnesty. If today lit the fuse, that action will explode America into chaos. Americans will revolt and take back control of America. Perhaps the amnesty is what is needed to rid America of the progressive plot once and for all. Because right now, the progressives are "nudging" along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes but the anti American demonRats are in charge and they need the votes. so suck it up.
Click to expand...


Yeah I am sure Pelosi and Reid are scheming to figure a way for all illegals to have a vote in the November election. These Progressives are disgusting anti-American trash.


----------



## Tank




----------



## CrusaderFrank

Wry Catcher said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tthe "attrition through enforcement" experiment seems to be putting the economy of Arizona in the tank. Small businesses are failing, apartment complexes are emptying and the once red-hot housing market is now stone cold and filled by REO's and short sales.
> 
> Such is the consequence of emotion based populist politics, where personal ambition leads and critically thinking is absent; where governors and legislators act in their own self-interest and where ideology rules and pragmatic solutions die.
> 
> 
> 
> And why would you care if the "experiment" seems to be putting the economy of Arizona in the tank?
> 
> After all, you're one of the loons who was so vociferously advocating a boycott that would put the economy of Arizona in the tank. Where small businesses would fail. Apartments would empty and the once red hot housing market would go stone cold resulting in REO's and short sales.
> 
> Ya' should be celebrating, ya' hypocritical liberal loon!
> 
> Christ, liberals are fucking idiots!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, it's too early to celebrate.  But if the people of Arizona vote out those who acted without thought and replace them with pragmatic leaders it will be time for celebration.
Click to expand...


I agree!  Obama and the Dems need to be voted out of office.


----------



## AmericanFirst

Wry Catcher said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tthe "attrition through enforcement" experiment seems to be putting the economy of Arizona in the tank. Small businesses are failing, apartment complexes are emptying and the once red-hot housing market is now stone cold and filled by REO's and short sales.
> 
> Such is the consequence of emotion based populist politics, where personal ambition leads and critically thinking is absent; where governors and legislators act in their own self-interest and where ideology rules and pragmatic solutions die.
> 
> 
> 
> And why would you care if the "experiment" seems to be putting the economy of Arizona in the tank?
> 
> After all, you're one of the loons who was so vociferously advocating a boycott that would put the economy of Arizona in the tank. Where small businesses would fail. Apartments would empty and the once red hot housing market would go stone cold resulting in REO's and short sales.
> 
> Ya' should be celebrating, ya' hypocritical liberal loon!
> 
> Christ, liberals are fucking idiots!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, it's too early to celebrate.  But if the people of Arizona vote out those who acted without thought and replace them with pragmatic leaders it will be time for celebration.
Click to expand...

Those who acted without thought...Like obama and the other thoughtless dimwits in D.C. now? Arizona needs to do its own thing and enforce the law as written anyway, slap the feds back in the face.


----------



## Navy1960

Wry,   I can assure you that  this decision will assure Gov. Brewer another  term in office  by a wide margin here.  Further,  the presidents  approval rating here in Arizona is somewhere around 30% according to many polls.   What many don't seem to understand is that  Arizona  is  a little tired of  the Federal Govt. not  enforcing the law  to the point where  it's officers, its citizens, and  it's economy were  in need of some sort of  protection.   Let me give you some idea Wry, each day along the  I-10, I-8 corridor   people that traffic  in human beings and  drugs mostly  Mexican drug cartels  move through that area.   At times they engage  local police with AK-47's   in order to protect their cargo.   Phoenix has become the  2nd largest kidnapping  city in the world as a result of  unchecked  and a Federal Govt. looking the other way.  So is it any wonder that the legislature here  would  at the very least  attempt to address an issue that the  Federal Govt. won't?  Let me go a little further,  last year the  Federal attorney in the state of California  prosecuted  ZERO persons for  illegal immigration if tha gives you some idea.  When you live here and you see  on the news,  families impacted from  a  Illegal Alien who killed their son or daughter , mother or father  simply because  our Govt. looked the other way then you would begin to understand the frustration.  This is not an issue of  lumping in an entire people  because of race,  in fact  if our Govt. really cared they would want to end this  sanctioned form  of slavery that is allowed as a result of our Govts. lack of interest in this.


----------



## AmericanFirst

Biggles said:


> Where is the Obama Administration lawsuit against sanctuary cities?  These cities are in direct violation of federal law.  The BO Administration is a hypocritical bunch of liars.  I am fed up with their plan for the destruction of America.


I am fed up also, but there are alot of so called Americans that beleive in his kind of socialism. It is obvious he does not beleive in the constitution, the commie.


----------



## Tech_Esq

Wry Catcher said:


> The judge issued a temporary injunction preventing the law from going into effect at midnight tonight.
> 
> As a side issue, the "attrition through enforcement" experiment seems to be putting the economy of Arizona in the tank.  Small businesses are failing, apartment complexes are emptying and the once red-hot housing market is now stone cold and filled by REO's and short sales.
> 
> Such is the consequence of emotion based populist politics, where personal ambition leads and critically thinking is absent, and where governors and legislators put ideology before people.



We went through the same thing in Prince William county after we enacted an Arizona like law 3 years ago. It should be an expected result of ridding the community of illegal labor glut that was exploited by the rich for their own gain and left the laborers themselves relatively impoverished for their efforts. However, they did have something of an economy and like all economies, large or small, they had businesses that catered to them.

We went through a year or 18 months of purging the illegals and the economy that catered to them. What is replacing it is much stronger and much better. Don't fear change, Wry.


----------



## Ravi

chanel said:


> *I guess driving without a drivers license or using a stolen one in AZ is now legal*. Or only if you no habla ingles.
> 
> Well they won. Might as well sign AZ over to their "rightful owners" now.


Why do you lie, chanel?


----------



## WillowTree

Biggles said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biggles said:
> 
> 
> 
> The part of the law regarding the mandate that officers determine if a person is in Arizona/America legally has been stayed. However, it does not stop officers from doing so voluntarily or by department orders. The Sheriffs in counties along the border are extremely disappointed in this ruling and are disappointed at the complete lack of care and effort by the Obama Administration to stop the flow of illegals into America.
> 
> Today is the lighting of the fuse of the American Revolution Ver2. 80% of Americans support the law as written. 80% of Americans are fed up with the porous border allowing illegals to come into America, eating up our tax dollars, distributing drugs, killing Americans, raping Americans, kidnapping Americans, destroying America.
> 
> In November, the progressives will be thrown out of Congress. My only fear is the rumor going around DC comes true, that the lame-duck liberals and Obama will conspire to pass legislation to give all 20 million illegals complete amnesty. If today lit the fuse, that action will explode America into chaos. Americans will revolt and take back control of America. Perhaps the amnesty is what is needed to rid America of the progressive plot once and for all. Because right now, the progressives are "nudging" along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes but the anti American demonRats are in charge and they need the votes. so suck it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah I am sure Pelosi and Reid are scheming to figure a way for all illegals to have a vote in the November election. These Progressives are disgusting anti-American trash.
Click to expand...


not by Nov. but during the lame duck in December they will grant amnest just in time to vote in 2012.


----------



## Terral

Hi Immanuel:



Immanuel said:


> Judge blocks parts of Arizona immigration law - Yahoo! News
> 
> I am still not sure how I feel about this law, but if an officer can not check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws, what good is this law?
> 
> Immie



The U.S. Federal Govt refuses to enforce our perfectly good Immigration, Employment and Document Fraud Laws already on the books. Governor Brewer and the Arizona Legislature are simply trying to do the job of enforcing our laws that the corrupt Federal Govt refuses to do. The Federal Judge is trying to legislate from the bench, instead of simply 'interpreting' the Law created by duly-elected Arizona officials. These lawsuits against the Arizona Law are all frivolous, because the Law has yet take effect; which means there are no victims.

This charade in the Federal Courts proves beyond all doubt that 'corruption' and pandering to the Open Border Lobby runs through all three branches of the inept Federal Govt that allows millions and millions and millions of Illegal Aliens to run around loose EVERYWHERE. About two dozen Americans will be killed by Illegal Aliens today and another two dozen American will be killed by Illegal Aliens tomorrow like every day of the week 'and' these corrupt politicians will pay for every life lost to this Illegal Alien Invasion. You can take that to the bank ...

GL,

Terral


----------



## Angelhair

Navy1960 said:


> Wry,   I can assure you that  this decision will assure Gov. Brewer another  term in office  by a wide margin here.  Further,  the presidents  approval rating here in Arizona is somewhere around 30% according to many polls.   What many don't seem to understand is that  Arizona  is  a little tired of  the Federal Govt. not  enforcing the law  to the point where  it's officers, its citizens, and  it's economy were  in need of some sort of  protection.   Let me give you some idea Wry, each day along the  I-10, I-8 corridor   people that traffic  in human beings and  drugs mostly  Mexican drug cartels  move through that area.   At times they engage  local police with AK-47's   in order to protect their cargo.   Phoenix has become the  2nd largest kidnapping  city in the world as a result of  unchecked  and a Federal Govt. looking the other way.  So is it any wonder that the legislature here  would  at the very least  attempt to address an issue that the  Federal Govt. won't?  Let me go a little further,  last year the  Federal attorney in the state of California  prosecuted  ZERO persons for  illegal immigration if tha gives you some idea.  When you live here and you see  on the news,  families impacted from  a  Illegal Alien who killed their son or daughter , mother or father  simply because  our Govt. looked the other way then you would begin to understand the frustration.  This is not an issue of  lumping in an entire people  because of race,  in fact  if our Govt. really cared they would want to end this  sanctioned form  of slavery that is allowed as a result of our Govts. lack of interest in this.



_I suspect that now the FEDERAL govenment is going to be forced to enforce the laws already in the books which have been there forever.  It's too soon to say that AZ has lost.  I think in a way AZ and the USA has won because the feds have no choice now but to do their job!  If the judge based her ruling on the fact that some provisions were unconstitutional  then it leaves the feds no choice.  Give it time - the sancutary cities will be history in the very near future - you read it here._


----------



## CrusaderFrank

We are a nation divided


----------



## Tech_Esq

Wry Catcher said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll give the same answer  I gave  in another thread to your  post  Wry,  Our state's economy , especially  the housing market  has  collapsed  as a result of the financial crisis. Those same homes and apartments you were speaking of were  for the most part built with the use of cheap illegal labor. With the lack of  new homes and apartments  being built the construction trades  suffer and  those needed to staff  it , namely those same illegal Aliens.
> 
> It makes complete sense to enforce  immigration laws,   for  economic reasons and  safety reasons, more so than to ignore them and use resources in a court room that would be better used in finding  solutions to this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I agree.  The solution lies somewhere between 1070 and Amnesty, but politics, prejudice and emotion (as well as personal ambition) interfere.
Click to expand...


In Prince William, we use a slightly modified version of Arizona's law (incidentally, after 3 years of enforcement, there has *not been one single substantiated case of racial profiling),* in our case legal status is only determined after arrest for another crime. So it is slightly more modest than the AZ law where it is a secondary breach. (Like stopping someone for texting on the cell phone. You can't stop them (in VA) if you see it, but if you stop them for something else, you can get them for that too.)

So, perhaps that's where you cut the baby in half. I'd be satisfied with that compromise. In the end, the illegals mostly deport themselves anyway. There are lots of "sanctuary" cities and states to go to, no reason to risk it in places like Prince William and AZ.


----------



## Oddball

Angelhair said:


> Federal Judge Susan Bolton granted an injunction against key sections of SB 1070 today, hours before the controversial new law was to take effect.
> 
> The judges decision gave the federal government and opponents  a major legal victory.
> 
> Parts of the new law will still take effect Thursday.
> 
> However, the major provisions that drew the opposition of immigrant rights groups, the ACLU and the Justice Department will not go into effect.
> 
> Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled.
> 
> There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law), Bolton ruled. By enforcing this statute, Arizona would impose a distinct, unusual and extraordinary burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose.
> 
> The provisions that were enjoined include sections that required officers to check a persons immigration status while enforcing other laws.
> 
> Also blocked from going into effect is the part of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times,.
> 
> The provision making it a crime for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places was also enjoined.
> 
> Injunctions against a state law going into effect must meet a high hurdle . Those seeking an injunction must show irreparable harm and a likelihood they will prevail at trial. The Plaintiffs succeed.
> 
> Full text of Judge Boltons ruling
> 
> SB 1070 enjoined by federal judge - View From Baja Arizona



Welcome to anarchy via activist judicial oligarchy.


----------



## Navy1960

Angelhair said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wry,   I can assure you that  this decision will assure Gov. Brewer another  term in office  by a wide margin here.  Further,  the presidents  approval rating here in Arizona is somewhere around 30% according to many polls.   What many don't seem to understand is that  Arizona  is  a little tired of  the Federal Govt. not  enforcing the law  to the point where  it's officers, its citizens, and  it's economy were  in need of some sort of  protection.   Let me give you some idea Wry, each day along the  I-10, I-8 corridor   people that traffic  in human beings and  drugs mostly  Mexican drug cartels  move through that area.   At times they engage  local police with AK-47's   in order to protect their cargo.   Phoenix has become the  2nd largest kidnapping  city in the world as a result of  unchecked  and a Federal Govt. looking the other way.  So is it any wonder that the legislature here  would  at the very least  attempt to address an issue that the  Federal Govt. won't?  Let me go a little further,  last year the  Federal attorney in the state of California  prosecuted  ZERO persons for  illegal immigration if tha gives you some idea.  When you live here and you see  on the news,  families impacted from  a  Illegal Alien who killed their son or daughter , mother or father  simply because  our Govt. looked the other way then you would begin to understand the frustration.  This is not an issue of  lumping in an entire people  because of race,  in fact  if our Govt. really cared they would want to end this  sanctioned form  of slavery that is allowed as a result of our Govts. lack of interest in this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _I suspect that now the FEDERAL govenment is going to be forced to enforce the laws already in the books which have been there forever.  It's too soon to say that AZ has lost.  I think in a way AZ and the USA has won because the feds have no choice now but to do their job!  If the judge based her ruling on the fact that some provisions were unconstitutional  then it leaves the feds no choice.  Give it time - the sancutary cities will be history in the very near future - you read it here._
Click to expand...


I don't believe for a moment  Arizona has lost this case yet, these things take  a long time to play themselves out. However having said that,  if the end result of SB-1070 is a Federal Govt. that actually  does address the issues of  immigration then perhaps  SB-1070 has  done it's  job.  I'm of  opinion that the Federal Govt. is riddled with individuals  on one side  that see's illegal immigrants  as  potential votes, and  another side that see's them as cheap sources of labor.  When what needs to happen is  someone  comming to the table  and  creating  an environment  where  a person who wishes to be here legally can and those here illegally can be removed  and enforced.


----------



## Avorysuds

Wry Catcher said:


> The judge issued a temporary injunction preventing the law from going into effect at midnight tonight.
> 
> As a side issue, the "attrition through enforcement" experiment seems to be putting the economy of Arizona in the tank.  Small businesses are failing, apartment complexes are emptying and the once red-hot housing market is now stone cold and filled by REO's and short sales.
> 
> Such is the consequence of emotion based populist politics, where personal ambition leads and critically thinking is absent, and where governors and legislators put ideology before people.



Wow so you somehow believe that the housing crash in AZ is due to this law being brought up a month or two ago??? So the entire rest of the country has a housing/bank/economy crisis but somehow AZ was still considered &#8220;hot&#8221;?? Are you even a real person or just a bot posting more dumb crap on the internet, that&#8217;s a real question btw.

Maybe the reason small businesses are failing is because they catered to Illegal&#8217;s to much, helping hurt the overall economy by making the tax payers foot the bill&#8230; Not to mention the GIANT ASS RESSESION the whole country is in&#8230;

What you fail to understand is free markets and how they work and why it&#8217;s a good thing. In this case homes will be vacant as well as apartment building due to people selling or renting to illegal&#8217;s loosing that customer but still having the overhead of the building. In the end the price for homes and renting will naturally drop, also more jobs will open up as illegal&#8217;s leave and taxes can either be brought down or simply put to better use (yeah right but that&#8217;s the idea).

So question, just how many illegals does it take to make a state or country&#8217;s economy good? Because we have something like 18 million illegal&#8217;s and things seem to be falling the fuck apart. States with the most illegals also seem to be falling the fuck apart faster than states with much smaller illegal immigrant populations.


----------



## Wicked Jester

CrusaderFrank said:


> We are a nation divided


Yes we are!.....And it doesn't help that we have a president who sat in the pews of a racist church for twenty years, being spoonfed the racist rantings of a preacher who's sole goal is too divide. It doesn't help that we have a president who chose to indict an innocent WHITE cop without all the facts presented, in a blatant attempt to take the brutha's side. It doesn't help that we have a president who called the Arizona law "misguided". A law that mirrors federal law. The same federal law that he vowed to protect when he raised his hand and vowed to protect ALL federal law. It doesn't help that we have a president who claims to be a scholar of constitutional law, but has fully proven time and again that he is clueless to constitutional law.

Seriously, how in the fuck did that moron get elected?


----------



## Oddball

Wry Catcher said:


> As a side issue, the "attrition through enforcement" experiment seems to be putting the economy of Arizona in the tank.  Small businesses are failing, apartment complexes are emptying and the once red-hot housing market is now stone cold and filled by REO's and short sales.
> 
> Such is the consequence of emotion based populist politics, where personal ambition leads and critically thinking is absent, and where governors and legislators put ideology before people.


Easily the stupidest post of the month....Including rdunce's prolific brain droppings


----------



## Avorysuds

topspin said:


> meanwhile cons have deported Zero



By cons you mean Neocons... And looky who on just one more issue agrees with Neocons!! Obama, Yay!!!! 

Is there even a single issue that Obama is different on than Neconservatives when they had power? Ohh I doubt it! But keep supporting that guy while hatin on Bush you numb nuts!


----------



## topspin

Immigration is not on my top ten list.
 It's my opinion that republicans or Bush didn't deport many illegals or we wouldn't have 20 million here. If he did show me, otherwise fuck all you wingnuts complaining to Obama that we have illegals.


----------



## Ravi

topspin said:


> Immigration is not on my top ten list.
> It's my opinion that republicans or Bush didn't deport many illegals or we wouldn't have 20 million here. If he did show me, otherwise fuck all you wingnuts complaining to Obama that we have illegals.


It's a wedge issue. Instead of enacting unconstitutional laws, Arizona should deploy their national guard to the border if they are so worried about the drug traffic. That they haven't just proves immigration is nothing but a wedge issue.


----------



## Biggles

topspin said:


> Immigration is not on my top ten list.
> It's my opinion that republicans or Bush didn't deport many illegals or we wouldn't have 20 million here. If he did show me, otherwise fuck all you wingnuts complaining to Obama that we have illegals.



It must always be 4:20 where you live.  Otherwise you'd be able to make sense.


----------



## Wicked Jester

Wry Catcher said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tthe "attrition through enforcement" experiment seems to be putting the economy of Arizona in the tank. Small businesses are failing, apartment complexes are emptying and the once red-hot housing market is now stone cold and filled by REO's and short sales.
> 
> Such is the consequence of emotion based populist politics, where personal ambition leads and critically thinking is absent; where governors and legislators act in their own self-interest and where ideology rules and pragmatic solutions die.
> 
> 
> 
> Ya' mean like the emotion based populist politics of sanctuary cities, where personal ambition leads and critically thinking is absent; where mayors and city councils act in their own self-interest and where ideology rules and pragmatic solutions die?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.  Laws should make sense and be enforced.  Emotion, bias, prejudice ought not influence legislators, locally or nationally.  Sadly it does.
> BTW, many 'sanctuaries' are churches - do you have an opinion on that activity?
> [btw, what happended to the Dodgers?  Hopefully they can cool SD and by next WE the Giants wil be where they belong, on top in the West].
Click to expand...

Regarding those churches, Wry. I would not attend them. I would not donate to them. I would encourage all whom I could to do the same. I would then notify ICE that it would behoove them to park it outside said church/churches and wait for the lil' criminal bastards to sneak out for a Taco Bell/El pollo loco run, arrest their sorry criminal asses, and toss 'em right back over the fucking border where they belong!.....If they refuse to do so, i'm going and getting that O'Reilly producer with the ambush cam, and ask him to embarrass the hell out of the do-nothing ICE MFer's!


----------



## Subhumus

This country will never be right, or as it was intended to be, until the monarchy that has presently infected our government is forcibly destroyed or removed. This is a fact. Most intelligent people know this, however a great deal of them are terrified by the notion so they rationalize in an effort to mask their cowardice and convictions. The majority of those in power are simply sheep that are too used to hundred dollar lunches, prostitution and material gratification to give a damn. This being as their pockets get fatter in the short term. The extreme few high profile puppets that that dance on the strings of real power merely forward the illusion of their master's while they best serve them to manipulate all of us to the tune of the real piper's agenda. Divide and conquer, pacify and distract. Not necessarily in that order.


----------



## Avorysuds

topspin said:


> Immigration is not on my top ten list.
> It's my opinion that republicans or Bush didn't deport many illegals or we wouldn't have 20 million here. If he did show me, otherwise fuck all you wingnuts complaining to Obama that we have illegals.



The goal is to be the party that gives Amnesty, to buy the votes. It aint that hard to understand man.

If Neocons are in power they try and buy the votes, if Dems are in power they try and buy the votes.

Maybe you need to learn that it's been 2 years of Obama and 3 years on a Democratic congress. Bush was bad, sure, but then why so long after Bush has left do we have Obama doing much of the same things Bush did? When Bush was president he was the focus, now that Obama is President (and has been for a long fucking time now) he is the focus.

Pay attention to today, not 700ish days ago. Know your histoty but at least be aware of the preasent.


----------



## Oddball

Subhumus said:


> This country will never be right, or as it was intended to be, until the monarchy that has presently infected our government is forcibly destroyed or removed. This is a fact. ...


It's going to also take a _*true*_ opposition party, rather than the current squishy, mealy-mouthed, feet-of-clay Republican Party, whose candidates campaign as though they're libertarians and govern as leftist democratics.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Avorysuds said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The judge issued a temporary injunction preventing the law from going into effect at midnight tonight.
> 
> As a side issue, the "attrition through enforcement" experiment seems to be putting the economy of Arizona in the tank.  Small businesses are failing, apartment complexes are emptying and the once red-hot housing market is now stone cold and filled by REO's and short sales.
> 
> Such is the consequence of emotion based populist politics, where personal ambition leads and critically thinking is absent, and where governors and legislators put ideology before people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow so you somehow believe that the housing crash in AZ is due to this law being brought up a month or two ago??? So the entire rest of the country has a housing/bank/economy crisis but somehow AZ was still considered &#8220;hot&#8221;?? Are you even a real person or just a bot posting more dumb crap on the internet, that&#8217;s a real question btw.
> 
> Maybe the reason small businesses are failing is because they catered to Illegal&#8217;s to much, helping hurt the overall economy by making the tax payers foot the bill&#8230; Not to mention the GIANT ASS RESSESION the whole country is in&#8230;
> 
> What you fail to understand is free markets and how they work and why it&#8217;s a good thing. In this case homes will be vacant as well as apartment building due to people selling or renting to illegal&#8217;s loosing that customer but still having the overhead of the building. In the end the price for homes and renting will naturally drop, also more jobs will open up as illegal&#8217;s leave and taxes can either be brought down or simply put to better use (yeah right but that&#8217;s the idea).
> 
> So question, just how many illegals does it take to make a state or country&#8217;s economy good? Because we have something like 18 million illegal&#8217;s and things seem to be falling the fuck apart. States with the most illegals also seem to be falling the fuck apart faster than states with much smaller illegal immigrant populations.
Click to expand...


Wry makes Freddo Corleone look like Newton, go easy on him.  I think he's up to his third or fourth lobotomy


----------



## Avorysuds

Dude said:


> Subhumus said:
> 
> 
> 
> This country will never be right, or as it was intended to be, until the monarchy that has presently infected our government is forcibly destroyed or removed. This is a fact. ...
> 
> 
> 
> It's going to also take a _*true*_ opposition party, rather than the current squishy, mealy-mouthed, feet-of-clay Republican Party, whose candidates campaign as though they're libertarians and govern as leftist democratics.
Click to expand...


Yup!

If you look at the country we have moved so far to the left (politicians) that you would be lucky if a hard core political person could list off just a hand full of true conservatives in congress. 

If you support 

The wars (MASSIVE Government growth/watse, that's right!)

Amnesty for illegal's

Government HC

The FED

Bail outs

Stimulus 

Then you prolly aint even in the realm of conservative. Of course a voting record is a whole lot different than talkin it up, and if you go off voting records there are very very few politicians that could be considered conservative.


----------



## Liability

The ruling may be temporary, but it's still baseless.  There is NO chance of any irreparable harm had the judge not approved the temporary restraining order. Indeed, it is fantasy to claim that there is a likelihood that opponents of the legislation will ultimately prevail.

The ruling was a spineless and gutless abrogation of her actual judicial responsibility.

Let's not kid ourselves.  The liberal bias of the judicial branch is quite clear and this is a political question that is being treated (invalidly) as though it were properly justiciable.  In her eventual (final) ruling she, like the Higher Courts (with the possible exception of the SCOTUS) are likely going to rule by judicial fiat along the very same lines.

What possible legal justification can exist to prevent a cop from finding out if some illegal immigrant is an illegal immigrant?

It really is insane.  Libs and other kooks have clearly taken over the asylum.


----------



## topspin

Biggles said:


> topspin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Immigration is not on my top ten list.
> It's my opinion that republicans or Bush didn't deport many illegals or we wouldn't have 20 million here. If he did show me, otherwise fuck all you wingnuts complaining to Obama that we have illegals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It must always be 4:20 where you live.  Otherwise you'd be able to make sense.
Click to expand...


 blow me, you added nothing

 that said when I retire it will be 4:20 all day you tool


----------



## topspin

liablitly to your family


----------



## Ravi

Liability said:


> The ruling may be temporary, but it's still baseless.  There is NO chance of any irreparable harm had the judge not approved the temporary restraining order. Indeed, it is fantasy to claim that there is a likelihood that opponents of the legislation will ultimately prevail.
> 
> The ruling was a spineless and gutless abrogation of her actual judicial responsibility.
> 
> Let's not kid ourselves.  The liberal bias of the judicial branch is quite clear and this is a political question that is being treated (invalidly) as though it were properly justiciable.  In her eventual (final) ruling she, like the Higher Courts (with the possible exception of the SCOTUS) are likely going to rule by judicial fiat along the very same lines.
> 
> What possible legal justification can exist to prevent a cop from finding out if some illegal immigrant is an illegal immigrant?
> 
> It really is insane.  Libs and other kooks have clearly taken over the asylum.


Why should local police officers be *mandated* to enforce federal immigration law? And why should everyone be forced to carry identification?

Those two things clearly run up against the constitution.


----------



## OCA

KMAN said:


> I wonder how many of these people protesting are illegals...  Pretty crazy that we have laws making illegal immigration illegal and then don't enforce them.
> 
> Judge blocks parts of Arizona immigration law - Yahoo! News



Wanna know why?


----------



## Tech_Esq

Ravi said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ruling may be temporary, but it's still baseless.  There is NO chance of any irreparable harm had the judge not approved the temporary restraining order. Indeed, it is fantasy to claim that there is a likelihood that opponents of the legislation will ultimately prevail.
> 
> The ruling was a spineless and gutless abrogation of her actual judicial responsibility.
> 
> Let's not kid ourselves.  The liberal bias of the judicial branch is quite clear and this is a political question that is being treated (invalidly) as though it were properly justiciable.  In her eventual (final) ruling she, like the Higher Courts (with the possible exception of the SCOTUS) are likely going to rule by judicial fiat along the very same lines.
> 
> What possible legal justification can exist to prevent a cop from finding out if some illegal immigrant is an illegal immigrant?
> 
> It really is insane.  Libs and other kooks have clearly taken over the asylum.
> 
> 
> 
> Why should local police officers be *mandated* to enforce federal immigration law? And why should everyone be forced to carry identification?
> 
> Those two things clearly run up against the constitution.
Click to expand...


I'll leave someone else your second point, but as to the first, you are clearly incorrect. 

The AZ law is not federal law. The AZ law mirrors the federal law in its requirements, but it is a state law, that's why we're referring to it as the Arizona law, not the federal law.

But, even if it were federal law, local law enforcement can enforce federal law with the proper training. Here in Prince William county we've been doing it for 3 years now. Not one single substantiated case of racial profiling. If someone is arrested, their immigration status is checked. Period. End of story. If you are here illegally, we call the paddy wagon at ICE and haul your ass back to where you came from.


----------



## Tech_Esq

Ravi said:


> topspin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Immigration is not on my top ten list.
> It's my opinion that republicans or Bush didn't deport many illegals or we wouldn't have 20 million here. If he did show me, otherwise fuck all you wingnuts complaining to Obama that we have illegals.
> 
> 
> 
> It's a wedge issue. Instead of enacting unconstitutional laws, Arizona should deploy their national guard to the border if they are so worried about the drug traffic. That they haven't just proves immigration is nothing but a wedge issue.
Click to expand...


Nope, wrong again. But keep tryin'.


----------



## Ravi

Tech_Esq said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ruling may be temporary, but it's still baseless.  There is NO chance of any irreparable harm had the judge not approved the temporary restraining order. Indeed, it is fantasy to claim that there is a likelihood that opponents of the legislation will ultimately prevail.
> 
> The ruling was a spineless and gutless abrogation of her actual judicial responsibility.
> 
> Let's not kid ourselves.  The liberal bias of the judicial branch is quite clear and this is a political question that is being treated (invalidly) as though it were properly justiciable.  In her eventual (final) ruling she, like the Higher Courts (with the possible exception of the SCOTUS) are likely going to rule by judicial fiat along the very same lines.
> 
> What possible legal justification can exist to prevent a cop from finding out if some illegal immigrant is an illegal immigrant?
> 
> It really is insane.  Libs and other kooks have clearly taken over the asylum.
> 
> 
> 
> Why should local police officers be *mandated* to enforce federal immigration law? And why should everyone be forced to carry identification?
> 
> Those two things clearly run up against the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll leave someone else you second point, but as to the first, you are clearly incorrect.
> 
> The AZ law is not federal law. The AZ law mirrors the federal law in its requirements, but it is a state law, that's why we're referring to it as the Arizona law, not the federal law.
> 
> But, even if it were federal law, local law enforcement can enforce federal law with the proper training. Here in Prince William county we've been doing it for 3 years now. Not one single substantiated case of racial profiling. If someone is arrested, their immigration status is check. Period. End of story. If you are here illegally, we call the paddy wagon at ICE and haul your ass back to where you came from.
Click to expand...

You're confused. There is a big difference between CAN and HAVE TO. The injunction is against the MANDATING of the local officers enforcing immigration law...state or federal. And I said federal because clearly a state has no jurisdiction over deciding US citizenship.

Your county's actions are different in that it is their choice as a county to do it...no one is mandating they do it except the perhaps the citizens of the county.


----------



## Avorysuds

topspin said:


> Biggles said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> topspin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Immigration is not on my top ten list.
> It's my opinion that republicans or Bush didn't deport many illegals or we wouldn't have 20 million here. If he did show me, otherwise fuck all you wingnuts complaining to Obama that we have illegals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It must always be 4:20 where you live.  Otherwise you'd be able to make sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> blow me, you added nothing
> 
> that said when I retire it will be 4:20 all day you tool
Click to expand...


Attack, the admit he is right... Clever.

The question you should ask is what do you bring to the debate? You keep tossing out Bush as if in any way he was representing a majority of conservatives out there. What was his approval ratting, 31% or something? Do you have any idea how few conservatives/Republicans supported him in the end? Even if conservatives were 25% of that 31% number that's absolute crap support from someones "base."

Get over yourself, or dont and get back to smoking your life away. Remember smoking pot is cool as fuck, when youre 13 so why stop now =D.


----------



## Tech_Esq

Ravi said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should local police officers be *mandated* to enforce federal immigration law? And why should everyone be forced to carry identification?
> 
> Those two things clearly run up against the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll leave someone else you second point, but as to the first, you are clearly incorrect.
> 
> The AZ law is not federal law. The AZ law mirrors the federal law in its requirements, but it is a state law, that's why we're referring to it as the Arizona law, not the federal law.
> 
> But, even if it were federal law, local law enforcement can enforce federal law with the proper training. Here in Prince William county we've been doing it for 3 years now. Not one single substantiated case of racial profiling. If someone is arrested, their immigration status is check. Period. End of story. If you are here illegally, we call the paddy wagon at ICE and haul your ass back to where you came from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're confused. There is a big difference between CAN and HAVE TO. The injunction is against the MANDATING of the local officers enforcing immigration law...state or federal. And I said federal because clearly a state has no jurisdiction over deciding US citizenship.
> 
> Your county's actions are different in that it is their choice as a county to do it...no one is mandating they do it except the perhaps the citizens of the county.
Click to expand...


The police in this county are MANDATED to determine immigration status of those arrested. Sorry I used the permissive in my response, I didn't realize that was your point. Likewise, under the AZ law, AZ police officers would be mandated to determine status after making a stop for another crime or traffic infraction.


----------



## WillowTree

let's all hear a big giant assed crow or cheer from the no borders crowd. ding ding ding.


----------



## Yurt

imo...the law will be upheld.....



> Although there is quite a bit of debate with respect to state and local law enforcement officers
> authority to enforce immigration law (see discussion below), as a matter of practice, it is
> permissible for state and local law enforcement officers to inquire into the status of an immigrant
> during the course of their normal duties in enforcing state and local law. This practice allows state
> and local law enforcement officers to play an indirect role that is incidental to their general
> criminal enforcement authority.
> For example, when state or local officers question the immigration status of someone they have
> detained for a state or local violation, they may contact an ICE agent at the Law Enforcement
> Support Center (LESC).5 The federal agent may then place a detainer on the suspect, requesting
> the state official to keep the suspect in custody until a determination can be made as to the
> suspects immigration status. However, the continued detention of such a suspect beyond the
> needs of local law enforcement designed to aid in the enforcement of federal immigration laws
> may be unlawful.6



http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl32270.pdf



> *The general rule is that local police are not precluded from enforcing federal statutes*. Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 10 L.Ed.2d 726 (1963); Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. 301, 78 S.Ct. 1190, 2 L.Ed.2d 1332 (1958); Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 68 S.Ct. 367, 92 L.Ed. 436 (1948); United States v. DiRe, 332 U.S. 581, 68 S.Ct. 222, 92 L.Ed. 210 (1948). Where state enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests concurrent enforcement activity is authorized. Florida Avocado Growers v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 142, 83 S.Ct. 1210, 1217, 10 L.Ed.2d 248 (1963). Therefore, federal regulation of a particular field should not be presumed to preempt state enforcement activity "in the absence of persuasive reasons--either that the nature of the regulated subject matter permits no other conclusion, or that the Congress has unmistakably so ordained." De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 356, 96 S.Ct. 933, 936, 47 L.Ed.2d 43 (1976) (quoting Florida Avocado Growers, 373 U.S. at 142, 83 S.Ct. at 1217).
> 14
> *Although the regulation of immigration is unquestionably an exclusive federal power, it is clear that this power does not preempt every state activity affecting aliens*. De Canas, 424 U.S. at 354-55, 96 S.Ct. at 935-36. The plaintiffs' reference to exclusive federal authority over immigration matters thus does not resolve this question. Instead, we must define precisely the challenged state enforcement activity to determine if "the nature of the regulated subject matter permits no other conclusion."





> The Immigration and Naturalization Act was considered by the second session of the 82nd Congress. The version of section 1324 passed by the House made no reference to arrest authority. Id., 81 Cal.App.3d at 1006, 147 Cal.Rptr. at 198. The version of section 1324 passed by the Senate authorized enforcement by "all other officers of the United States whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws." Conf.Rep. No. 1505, 82nd Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in 1952 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 1358, 1360, 1361. As the Barajas court concluded, the clear implication of that version of the statute was that the enforcement of section 1324 was limited, but that of sections 1325 and 1326 was not. As a compromise, however, the conferees agreed to adopt an amendment to section 1324(c) proposed by the House. According to the Conference Report, the amendment "struck out the words 'of the United States,' so that other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws would have authority to make an arrest for a violation of a provision of the act." Id. The amendment thus removed the limitations on enforcement authority in section 1324(c). This expansion of authority cannot be read as an implied limitation of sections 1325 and 1326. Instead, it implicitly made the enforcement authority as to all three statutes identical.
> 23
> *We therefore hold that federal law does not preclude local enforcement of the criminal provisions of the Act*.



Gonzales v. City of Peoria 722 F. 2d 468 (9th Cir. 1983)


----------



## 007




----------



## Luissa

Navy1960 said:


> The judges  ruling was more or less a washing of the hands  of the issue,  but  the stay was  on  making  it a requirement to check status.  However that does not mean an officer cannot check status if that person has not been arrested, if this was so then  the entire ICE database that the Federal Govt. shares with state and local law enforcement  would have to be dismantled. The other portion that was stayed  was  the portion that required documentation. Basically SB-1070 has been rendered mute  as a result of this of this stay for the time being leaving  Arizona back where it started, where  the Federal Govt. looks the other way, while the   drugs, traffic in human beings,  murder,  and  American job loss continues.



Isn't crime down in Arizona and Texas? I saw one report done about a border town in Texas who said crime was down and the number of illegals crossing the border was down due to more border patrol. 
People keep saying we need to do something, but it seems we are.


----------



## Luissa

Pale Rider said:


>



 You are such a moron!


----------



## WillowTree

Luissa said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The judges  ruling was more or less a washing of the hands  of the issue,  but  the stay was  on  making  it a requirement to check status.  However that does not mean an officer cannot check status if that person has not been arrested, if this was so then  the entire ICE database that the Federal Govt. shares with state and local law enforcement  would have to be dismantled. The other portion that was stayed  was  the portion that required documentation. Basically SB-1070 has been rendered mute  as a result of this of this stay for the time being leaving  Arizona back where it started, where  the Federal Govt. looks the other way, while the   drugs, traffic in human beings,  murder,  and  American job loss continues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't crime down in Arizona and Texas? I saw one report done about a border town in Texas who said crime was down and the number of illegals crossing the border was down due to more border patrol.
> People keep saying we need to do something, but it seems we are.
Click to expand...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMgKp8sQVis]YouTube - Janet Napolitano Border is as Secure as Ever-NOT![/ame]







listen and weep or NOT.


----------



## WillowTree

We don't need no fucking ID either.


----------



## Luissa

WillowTree said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The judges  ruling was more or less a washing of the hands  of the issue,  but  the stay was  on  making  it a requirement to check status.  However that does not mean an officer cannot check status if that person has not been arrested, if this was so then  the entire ICE database that the Federal Govt. shares with state and local law enforcement  would have to be dismantled. The other portion that was stayed  was  the portion that required documentation. Basically SB-1070 has been rendered mute  as a result of this of this stay for the time being leaving  Arizona back where it started, where  the Federal Govt. looks the other way, while the   drugs, traffic in human beings,  murder,  and  American job loss continues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't crime down in Arizona and Texas? I saw one report done about a border town in Texas who said crime was down and the number of illegals crossing the border was down due to more border patrol.
> People keep saying we need to do something, but it seems we are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMgKp8sQVis]YouTube - Janet Napolitano Border is as Secure as Ever-NOT![/ame]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> listen and weep or NOT.
Click to expand...


Did I say it was safe? No, I said crime was down. And so is illegal immigration.
This new law will do nothing for the drug crimes.

All that is going to happen is Phoenix and Arizona is going to become even bankrupt than it already is, and drug trafficking will continue. If Arizona really wanted to do something worth while, they would legalize marijuana, tax it, because we all know they need the money, and it would cut down on crime probably by a large margin. Colorado is a prime example of why this would work, legal marijuana businesses are putting drug dealers out of business. Most of you need to learn how to think outside of the box.


----------



## Liability

Ravi said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ruling may be temporary, but it's still baseless.  There is NO chance of any irreparable harm had the judge not approved the temporary restraining order. Indeed, it is fantasy to claim that there is a likelihood that opponents of the legislation will ultimately prevail.
> 
> The ruling was a spineless and gutless abrogation of her actual judicial responsibility.
> 
> Let's not kid ourselves.  The liberal bias of the judicial branch is quite clear and this is a political question that is being treated (invalidly) as though it were properly justiciable.  In her eventual (final) ruling she, like the Higher Courts (with the possible exception of the SCOTUS) are likely going to rule by judicial fiat along the very same lines.
> 
> What possible legal justification can exist to prevent a cop from finding out if some illegal immigrant is an illegal immigrant?
> 
> It really is insane.  Libs and other kooks have clearly taken over the asylum.
> 
> 
> 
> Why should local police officers be *mandated* to enforce federal immigration law? And why should everyone be forced to carry identification?
> 
> Those two things clearly run up against the constitution.
Click to expand...


Wrong.  they don't "clearly" run up the Constitution.  They don't run up against the constitution at all.

Local Law enforcement is mandated by the laws of their respective states to do lots of things.  Why the fuck should a state not have the authority and power to direct the cops to check the immigration status of suspected illegal aliens when  they have been stopped for other reasons?

And nobody is required by the AZ law to carry I.D.  That's an invalid attempt to score a cheap debate point.  If you happen to come under suspicion after a traffic stop etc., but you also happen to be here legally (or, perhaps, you are a by-God citizen), you may get verbally challenged.  Your answers may suffice to assist you, but perhaps not.  Ooops.  You might get detained until you are cleared.  Gee.  That's oh so sucky.  

But just think about it.  That minor inconvenience weighed against isolating and identifying someone here illegally COULD turn out to be a life saver.   There are some "bad guys" out there trying to get in for nefarious purposes.  It would be wonderful if this program happens to intercept an al qaeda piece of shit.

You guys get your panties in a wad like WAY too easily.


----------



## WillowTree

Luissa said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't crime down in Arizona and Texas? I saw one report done about a border town in Texas who said crime was down and the number of illegals crossing the border was down due to more border patrol.
> People keep saying we need to do something, but it seems we are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMgKp8sQVis]YouTube - Janet Napolitano Border is as Secure as Ever-NOT![/ame]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> listen and weep or NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I say it was safe? No, I said crime was down. And so is illegal immigration.
> This new law will do nothing for the drug crimes.
> 
> All that is going to happen is Phoenix and Arizona is going to become even bankrupt than it already is, and drug trafficking will continue. If Arizona really wanted to do something worth while, they would legalize marijuana, tax it, because we all know they need the money, and it would cut down on crime probably by a large margin. Colorado is a prime example of why this would work, legal marijuana businesses are putting drug dealers out of business. Most of you need to learn how to think outside of the box.
Click to expand...


quit whining asswipe, you won a major victory today, brown people ain't gotta follow no laws or show no damn Id'd they is free azzz birds


----------



## Yurt

Ravi said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ruling may be temporary, but it's still baseless.  There is NO chance of any irreparable harm had the judge not approved the temporary restraining order. Indeed, it is fantasy to claim that there is a likelihood that opponents of the legislation will ultimately prevail.
> 
> The ruling was a spineless and gutless abrogation of her actual judicial responsibility.
> 
> Let's not kid ourselves.  The liberal bias of the judicial branch is quite clear and this is a political question that is being treated (invalidly) as though it were properly justiciable.  In her eventual (final) ruling she, like the Higher Courts (with the possible exception of the SCOTUS) are likely going to rule by judicial fiat along the very same lines.
> 
> What possible legal justification can exist to prevent a cop from finding out if some illegal immigrant is an illegal immigrant?
> 
> It really is insane.  Libs and other kooks have clearly taken over the asylum.
> 
> 
> 
> Why should local police officers be *mandated* to enforce federal immigration law? And why should everyone be forced to carry identification?
> 
> Those two things clearly run up against the constitution.
Click to expand...


please point out where in the constitution these two things run up against....

thanks


----------



## Yurt

Luissa said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't crime down in Arizona and Texas? I saw one report done about a border town in Texas who said crime was down and the number of illegals crossing the border was down due to more border patrol.
> People keep saying we need to do something, but it seems we are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMgKp8sQVis]YouTube - Janet Napolitano Border is as Secure as Ever-NOT![/ame]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> listen and weep or NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I say it was safe? No, I said crime was down. And so is illegal immigration.
> This new law will do nothing for the drug crimes.
> 
> All that is going to happen is Phoenix and Arizona is going to become even bankrupt than it already is, and drug trafficking will continue. If Arizona really wanted to do something worth while, they would legalize marijuana, tax it, because we all know they need the money, and it would cut down on crime probably by a large margin. Colorado is a prime example of why this would work, legal marijuana businesses are putting drug dealers out of business. Most of you need to learn how to think outside of the box.
Click to expand...


why would AZ go bankrupt?

i agree about marijuana


----------



## Yurt

Liability said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ruling may be temporary, but it's still baseless.  There is NO chance of any irreparable harm had the judge not approved the temporary restraining order. Indeed, it is fantasy to claim that there is a likelihood that opponents of the legislation will ultimately prevail.
> 
> The ruling was a spineless and gutless abrogation of her actual judicial responsibility.
> 
> Let's not kid ourselves.  The liberal bias of the judicial branch is quite clear and this is a political question that is being treated (invalidly) as though it were properly justiciable.  In her eventual (final) ruling she, like the Higher Courts (with the possible exception of the SCOTUS) are likely going to rule by judicial fiat along the very same lines.
> 
> What possible legal justification can exist to prevent a cop from finding out if some illegal immigrant is an illegal immigrant?
> 
> It really is insane.  Libs and other kooks have clearly taken over the asylum.
> 
> 
> 
> Why should local police officers be *mandated* to enforce federal immigration law? And why should everyone be forced to carry identification?
> 
> Those two things clearly run up against the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  they don't "clearly" run up the Constitution.  They don't run up against the constitution at all.
> 
> Local Law enforcement is mandated by the laws of their respective states to do lots of things.  Why the fuck should a state not have the authority and power to direct the cops to check the immigration status of suspected illegal aliens when  they have been stopped for other reasons?
> 
> And nobody is required by the AZ law to carry I.D.  That's an invalid attempt to score a cheap debate point.  If you happen to come under suspicion after a traffic stop etc., but you also happen to be here legally (or, perhaps, you are a by-God citizen), you may get verbally challenged.  Your answers may suffice to assist you, but perhaps not.  Ooops.  You might get detained until you are cleared.  Gee.  That's oh so sucky.
> 
> But just think about it.  That minor inconvenience weighed against isolating and identifying someone here illegally COULD turn out to be a life saver.   There are some "bad guys" out there trying to get in for nefarious purposes.  It would be wonderful if this program happens to intercept an al qaeda piece of shit.
> 
> You guys get your panties in a wad like WAY too easily.
Click to expand...


i hope you're not expecting ravi to substantiate her claims....

you are right though...i laid out the law in post 89

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2555465-post89.html


----------



## Luissa

WillowTree said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - Janet Napolitano Border is as Secure as Ever-NOT!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> listen and weep or NOT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say it was safe? No, I said crime was down. And so is illegal immigration.
> This new law will do nothing for the drug crimes.
> 
> All that is going to happen is Phoenix and Arizona is going to become even bankrupt than it already is, and drug trafficking will continue. If Arizona really wanted to do something worth while, they would legalize marijuana, tax it, because we all know they need the money, and it would cut down on crime probably by a large margin. Colorado is a prime example of why this would work, legal marijuana businesses are putting drug dealers out of business. Most of you need to learn how to think outside of the box.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> quit whining asswipe, you won a major victory today, brown people ain't gotta follow no laws or show no damn Id'd they is free azzz birds
Click to expand...


----------



## Yurt

Ravi said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should local police officers be *mandated* to enforce federal immigration law? And why should everyone be forced to carry identification?
> 
> Those two things clearly run up against the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll leave someone else you second point, but as to the first, you are clearly incorrect.
> 
> The AZ law is not federal law. The AZ law mirrors the federal law in its requirements, but it is a state law, that's why we're referring to it as the Arizona law, not the federal law.
> 
> But, even if it were federal law, local law enforcement can enforce federal law with the proper training. Here in Prince William county we've been doing it for 3 years now. Not one single substantiated case of racial profiling. If someone is arrested, their immigration status is check. Period. End of story. If you are here illegally, we call the paddy wagon at ICE and haul your ass back to where you came from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're confused. There is a big difference between CAN and HAVE TO. The injunction is against the MANDATING of the local officers enforcing immigration law...state or federal. And I said federal because clearly a state has no jurisdiction over deciding US citizenship.
> 
> Your county's actions are different in that it is their choice as a county to do it...no one is mandating they do it except the perhaps the citizens of the county.
Click to expand...


the only person confused is you...you're confusing the FEDS forcing STATES to enforce immigration laws

that is not the case here

care to try again?  and i wonder if you will ever point specifically in the constitution where you believe you are correct....


----------



## Luissa

Yurt said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - Janet Napolitano Border is as Secure as Ever-NOT!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> listen and weep or NOT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say it was safe? No, I said crime was down. And so is illegal immigration.
> This new law will do nothing for the drug crimes.
> 
> All that is going to happen is Phoenix and Arizona is going to become even bankrupt than it already is, and drug trafficking will continue. If Arizona really wanted to do something worth while, they would legalize marijuana, tax it, because we all know they need the money, and it would cut down on crime probably by a large margin. Colorado is a prime example of why this would work, legal marijuana businesses are putting drug dealers out of business. Most of you need to learn how to think outside of the box.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why would AZ go bankrupt?
> 
> i agree about marijuana
Click to expand...


Oh! I don't know, maybe their failing housing market.


----------



## Yurt

Luissa said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say it was safe? No, I said crime was down. And so is illegal immigration.
> This new law will do nothing for the drug crimes.
> 
> All that is going to happen is Phoenix and Arizona is going to become even bankrupt than it already is, and drug trafficking will continue. If Arizona really wanted to do something worth while, they would legalize marijuana, tax it, because we all know they need the money, and it would cut down on crime probably by a large margin. Colorado is a prime example of why this would work, legal marijuana businesses are putting drug dealers out of business. Most of you need to learn how to think outside of the box.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why would AZ go bankrupt?
> 
> i agree about marijuana
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh! I don't know, maybe their failing housing market.
Click to expand...


oh, so it has nothing to do with the immigration law...i thought you were trying to correlate the two

my bad


----------



## Liability

Yurt said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should local police officers be *mandated* to enforce federal immigration law? And why should everyone be forced to carry identification?
> 
> Those two things clearly run up against the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  they don't "clearly" run up the Constitution.  They don't run up against the constitution at all.
> 
> Local Law enforcement is mandated by the laws of their respective states to do lots of things.  Why the fuck should a state not have the authority and power to direct the cops to check the immigration status of suspected illegal aliens when  they have been stopped for other reasons?
> 
> And nobody is required by the AZ law to carry I.D.  That's an invalid attempt to score a cheap debate point.  If you happen to come under suspicion after a traffic stop etc., but you also happen to be here legally (or, perhaps, you are a by-God citizen), you may get verbally challenged.  Your answers may suffice to assist you, but perhaps not.  Ooops.  You might get detained until you are cleared.  Gee.  That's oh so sucky.
> 
> But just think about it.  That minor inconvenience weighed against isolating and identifying someone here illegally COULD turn out to be a life saver.   There are some "bad guys" out there trying to get in for nefarious purposes.  It would be wonderful if this program happens to intercept an al qaeda piece of shit.
> 
> You guys get your panties in a wad like WAY too easily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i hope you're not expecting ravi to substantiate her claims....
> 
> you are right though...i laid out the law in post 89
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/2555465-post89.html
Click to expand...


Yes.  I meant to give you props on that.  Nicely done.  I am not confident that the courts will bother worrying, now, about trivial thins like stare decisis, however.   Tis a shame.  They too frequently rule based on political partisan beliefs rather than relying on neutral principles of law.

But, maybe we'll get lucky. Who knows?


----------



## Luissa

Yurt said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - Janet Napolitano Border is as Secure as Ever-NOT!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> listen and weep or NOT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say it was safe? No, I said crime was down. And so is illegal immigration.
> This new law will do nothing for the drug crimes.
> 
> All that is going to happen is Phoenix and Arizona is going to become even bankrupt than it already is, and drug trafficking will continue. If Arizona really wanted to do something worth while, they would legalize marijuana, tax it, because we all know they need the money, and it would cut down on crime probably by a large margin. Colorado is a prime example of why this would work, legal marijuana businesses are putting drug dealers out of business. Most of you need to learn how to think outside of the box.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why would AZ go bankrupt?
> 
> i agree about marijuana
Click to expand...




> Arizona completed $735 million in sale and lease-back deals for public buildings and state properties, including several prison facilities, as lawmakers attempt to close the states multibillion-dollar budget deficit.
> 
> The state sold $735 million of certificates of participation on the municipal bond market to help close Arizonas $3.2 billion shortfall, according to the Department of Administration.
> 
> Six buildings at the state prison complex in Florence and the state police headquarters were among some of the notable properties included in the offering, which also includes the tower that houses the governors office.Ariz. Prison Sell-Off | Correctional News




I got this off of a blog, but there were a few stories about it. I think this part is interesting.



> Corrections Corporation of America, or CCA, holds the federal contract to house detainees in Arizona. The company bills $11 million per month. CBS 5 Investigates has learned that two of Brewers top advisers have connections to CCA.
> 
> Paul Senseman is the governors deputy chief of staff. He is also a former lobbyist for CCA. His wife is listed as a current lobbyist for the company.
> 
> Chuck Coughlin is one of the governors policy advisers and her campaign chairman. Coughlins company, HighGround Public Affairs Consultants, currently lobbies for CCA.Is Governor Jan Brewer Under Investigation For Private Prisons | wrightandleftreport.com



This is why I have a problem with the law.


----------



## WillowTree

Luissa said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say it was safe? No, I said crime was down. And so is illegal immigration.
> This new law will do nothing for the drug crimes.
> 
> All that is going to happen is Phoenix and Arizona is going to become even bankrupt than it already is, and drug trafficking will continue. If Arizona really wanted to do something worth while, they would legalize marijuana, tax it, because we all know they need the money, and it would cut down on crime probably by a large margin. Colorado is a prime example of why this would work, legal marijuana businesses are putting drug dealers out of business. Most of you need to learn how to think outside of the box.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why would AZ go bankrupt?
> 
> i agree about marijuana
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona completed $735 million in sale and lease-back deals for public buildings and state properties, including several prison facilities, as lawmakers attempt to close the states multibillion-dollar budget deficit.
> 
> The state sold $735 million of certificates of participation on the municipal bond market to help close Arizonas $3.2 billion shortfall, according to the Department of Administration.
> 
> Six buildings at the state prison complex in Florence and the state police headquarters were among some of the notable properties included in the offering, which also includes the tower that houses the governors office.Ariz. Prison Sell-Off | Correctional News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I got this off of a blog, but there were a few stories about it. I think this part is interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Corrections Corporation of America, or CCA, holds the federal contract to house detainees in Arizona. The company bills $11 million per month. CBS 5 Investigates has learned that two of Brewers top advisers have connections to CCA.
> 
> Paul Senseman is the governors deputy chief of staff. He is also a former lobbyist for CCA. His wife is listed as a current lobbyist for the company.
> 
> Chuck Coughlin is one of the governors policy advisers and her campaign chairman. Coughlins company, HighGround Public Affairs Consultants, currently lobbies for CCA.Is Governor Jan Brewer Under Investigation For Private Prisons | wrightandleftreport.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is why I have a problem with the law.
Click to expand...


quit whining, you won brown people don't need no fucking id and they don't gotta follow no law either. what else ya want?


----------



## Yurt

Luissa said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say it was safe? No, I said crime was down. And so is illegal immigration.
> This new law will do nothing for the drug crimes.
> 
> All that is going to happen is Phoenix and Arizona is going to become even bankrupt than it already is, and drug trafficking will continue. If Arizona really wanted to do something worth while, they would legalize marijuana, tax it, because we all know they need the money, and it would cut down on crime probably by a large margin. Colorado is a prime example of why this would work, legal marijuana businesses are putting drug dealers out of business. Most of you need to learn how to think outside of the box.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why would AZ go bankrupt?
> 
> i agree about marijuana
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona completed $735 million in sale and lease-back deals for public buildings and state properties, including several prison facilities, as lawmakers attempt to close the states multibillion-dollar budget deficit.
> 
> The state sold $735 million of certificates of participation on the municipal bond market to help close Arizonas $3.2 billion shortfall, according to the Department of Administration.
> 
> Six buildings at the state prison complex in Florence and the state police headquarters were among some of the notable properties included in the offering, which also includes the tower that houses the governors office.Ariz. Prison Sell-Off | Correctional News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I got this off of a blog, but there were a few stories about it. I think this part is interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Corrections Corporation of America, or CCA, holds the federal contract to house detainees in Arizona. The company bills $11 million per month. CBS 5 Investigates has learned that two of Brewers top advisers have connections to CCA.
> 
> Paul Senseman is the governors deputy chief of staff. He is also a former lobbyist for CCA. His wife is listed as a current lobbyist for the company.
> 
> Chuck Coughlin is one of the governors policy advisers and her campaign chairman. Coughlins company, HighGround Public Affairs Consultants, currently lobbies for CCA.Is Governor Jan Brewer Under Investigation For Private Prisons | wrightandleftreport.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is why I have a problem with the law.
Click to expand...


what does that have to do with the AZ law?


----------



## SFC Ollie

Yurt said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> why would AZ go bankrupt?
> 
> i agree about marijuana
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I got this off of a blog, but there were a few stories about it. I think this part is interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Corrections Corporation of America, or CCA, holds the federal contract to house detainees in Arizona. The company bills $11 million per month. CBS 5 Investigates has learned that two of Brewers top advisers have connections to CCA.
> 
> Paul Senseman is the governors deputy chief of staff. He is also a former lobbyist for CCA. His wife is listed as a current lobbyist for the company.
> 
> Chuck Coughlin is one of the governors policy advisers and her campaign chairman. Coughlins company, HighGround Public Affairs Consultants, currently lobbies for CCA.Is Governor Jan Brewer Under Investigation For Private Prisons | wrightandleftreport.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is why I have a problem with the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what does that have to do with the AZ law?
Click to expand...


About as much as the cost of eggs in China has to do with it.


----------



## Biggles

Yurt said:


> imo...the law will be upheld.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although there is quite a bit of debate with respect to state and local law enforcement officers
> authority to enforce immigration law (see discussion below), as a matter of practice, it is
> permissible for state and local law enforcement officers to inquire into the status of an immigrant
> during the course of their normal duties in enforcing state and local law. This practice allows state
> and local law enforcement officers to play an indirect role that is incidental to their general
> criminal enforcement authority.
> For example, when state or local officers question the immigration status of someone they have
> detained for a state or local violation, they may contact an ICE agent at the Law Enforcement
> Support Center (LESC).5 The federal agent may then place a detainer on the suspect, requesting
> the state official to keep the suspect in custody until a determination can be made as to the
> suspects immigration status. However, the continued detention of such a suspect beyond the
> needs of local law enforcement designed to aid in the enforcement of federal immigration laws
> may be unlawful.6
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl32270.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The general rule is that local police are not precluded from enforcing federal statutes*. Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 10 L.Ed.2d 726 (1963); Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. 301, 78 S.Ct. 1190, 2 L.Ed.2d 1332 (1958); Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 68 S.Ct. 367, 92 L.Ed. 436 (1948); United States v. DiRe, 332 U.S. 581, 68 S.Ct. 222, 92 L.Ed. 210 (1948). Where state enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests concurrent enforcement activity is authorized. Florida Avocado Growers v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 142, 83 S.Ct. 1210, 1217, 10 L.Ed.2d 248 (1963). Therefore, federal regulation of a particular field should not be presumed to preempt state enforcement activity "in the absence of persuasive reasons--either that the nature of the regulated subject matter permits no other conclusion, or that the Congress has unmistakably so ordained." De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 356, 96 S.Ct. 933, 936, 47 L.Ed.2d 43 (1976) (quoting Florida Avocado Growers, 373 U.S. at 142, 83 S.Ct. at 1217).
> 14
> *Although the regulation of immigration is unquestionably an exclusive federal power, it is clear that this power does not preempt every state activity affecting aliens*. De Canas, 424 U.S. at 354-55, 96 S.Ct. at 935-36. The plaintiffs' reference to exclusive federal authority over immigration matters thus does not resolve this question. Instead, we must define precisely the challenged state enforcement activity to determine if "the nature of the regulated subject matter permits no other conclusion."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Immigration and Naturalization Act was considered by the second session of the 82nd Congress. The version of section 1324 passed by the House made no reference to arrest authority. Id., 81 Cal.App.3d at 1006, 147 Cal.Rptr. at 198. The version of section 1324 passed by the Senate authorized enforcement by "all other officers of the United States whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws." Conf.Rep. No. 1505, 82nd Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in 1952 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 1358, 1360, 1361. As the Barajas court concluded, the clear implication of that version of the statute was that the enforcement of section 1324 was limited, but that of sections 1325 and 1326 was not. As a compromise, however, the conferees agreed to adopt an amendment to section 1324(c) proposed by the House. According to the Conference Report, the amendment "struck out the words 'of the United States,' so that other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws would have authority to make an arrest for a violation of a provision of the act." Id. The amendment thus removed the limitations on enforcement authority in section 1324(c). This expansion of authority cannot be read as an implied limitation of sections 1325 and 1326. Instead, it implicitly made the enforcement authority as to all three statutes identical.
> 23
> *We therefore hold that federal law does not preclude local enforcement of the criminal provisions of the Act*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gonzales v. City of Peoria 722 F. 2d 468 (9th Cir. 1983)
Click to expand...


Yes. I agree it should be upheld.  Unfortunately, it will take going from AZ Court to the Liberal 9Th Circuit Court of Appeals to the US Supreme Court.  I am sure it will be fast tracked, but what a waste of time and taxpayer money.  Well, I guess that is the BO Agenda, isn't it?


----------



## SFC Ollie

Biggles said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> imo...the law will be upheld.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although there is quite a bit of debate with respect to state and local law enforcement officers
> authority to enforce immigration law (see discussion below), as a matter of practice, it is
> permissible for state and local law enforcement officers to inquire into the status of an immigrant
> during the course of their normal duties in enforcing state and local law. This practice allows state
> and local law enforcement officers to play an indirect role that is incidental to their general
> criminal enforcement authority.
> For example, when state or local officers question the immigration status of someone they have
> detained for a state or local violation, they may contact an ICE agent at the Law Enforcement
> Support Center (LESC).5 The federal agent may then place a detainer on the suspect, requesting
> the state official to keep the suspect in custody until a determination can be made as to the
> suspects immigration status. However, the continued detention of such a suspect beyond the
> needs of local law enforcement designed to aid in the enforcement of federal immigration laws
> may be unlawful.6
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl32270.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Immigration and Naturalization Act was considered by the second session of the 82nd Congress. The version of section 1324 passed by the House made no reference to arrest authority. Id., 81 Cal.App.3d at 1006, 147 Cal.Rptr. at 198. The version of section 1324 passed by the Senate authorized enforcement by "all other officers of the United States whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws." Conf.Rep. No. 1505, 82nd Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in 1952 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 1358, 1360, 1361. As the Barajas court concluded, the clear implication of that version of the statute was that the enforcement of section 1324 was limited, but that of sections 1325 and 1326 was not. As a compromise, however, the conferees agreed to adopt an amendment to section 1324(c) proposed by the House. According to the Conference Report, the amendment "struck out the words 'of the United States,' so that other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws would have authority to make an arrest for a violation of a provision of the act." Id. The amendment thus removed the limitations on enforcement authority in section 1324(c). This expansion of authority cannot be read as an implied limitation of sections 1325 and 1326. Instead, it implicitly made the enforcement authority as to all three statutes identical.
> 23
> *We therefore hold that federal law does not preclude local enforcement of the criminal provisions of the Act*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gonzales v. City of Peoria 722 F. 2d 468 (9th Cir. 1983)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. I agree it should be upheld.  Unfortunately, it will take going from AZ Court to the Liberal 9Th Circuit Court of Appeals to the US Supreme Court.  I am sure it will be fast tracked, but what a waste of time and taxpayer money.  Well, I guess that is the BO Agenda, isn't it?
Click to expand...


He needs to keep it tied up until he can get amnesty passed.


----------



## Charles_Main

All I have to say is this. 

To Those Opposed to this law. Do not get all excited, this was one Judge, Appointed by a democrat, Arizona will no doubt appeal. I suspect this was always destined for the Supreme court.

I would also not be to excited as a Democrat, and Obama supporter as with over 70% of people in favor of this law, this might be a legal victory, but it could be a political defeat. 


To supporters of this law, I say. What, did you expect anything less from a Liberal Democrat Appointee? Don't let it get you down, there will be an appeal, and this is going to cost the Dems more votes. They just thumbed their noses at 77% of the American people, and are admittedly celebrating doing it. Obama won a victory for the Status Quo, DOING NOTHING. This will not play well for him with Independents at all. 

Nuff said, I await the Appeal.


----------



## Zona

KMAN said:


> I wonder how many of these people protesting are illegals...  Pretty crazy that we have laws making illegal immigration illegal and then don't enforce them.
> 
> Judge blocks parts of Arizona immigration law - Yahoo! News



Conhog is in arizona for the week and this week this thing gets shot down....I see something fishy here.


----------



## Zona

By the way 1070 supporters and racist assholes .....neener neener.  I told you this thing wouldn't go through and if it does, it will bankrupt this state.


----------



## Yurt

Zona said:


> By the way 1070 supporters and racist assholes .....neener neener.  I told you this thing wouldn't go through and if it does, it will bankrupt this state.



hey half nickel brain....see post 89 if you want to actually discuss issues and not jizz your spam all over the place


----------



## topspin

I'm gonna pass on yurt the fake lawyers call on this. Obama needed this he had two straight losses in court vs oil.


----------



## SFC Ollie

I have full confidence that in a year or two it will make it's way to the Supreme court where the law will be kicked back to a lower court because it is no longer relevant after the Dems get their new voters. Er I mean after amnesty. 

It is not too early to start lobbying against amnesty people, start emailing your congressmen and senators now.


----------



## Zona

Yurt said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way 1070 supporters and racist assholes .....neener neener.  I told you this thing wouldn't go through and if it does, it will bankrupt this state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hey half nickel brain....see post 89 if you want to actually discuss issues and not jizz your spam all over the place
Click to expand...


Half nickel brain?

Who said ..."obama's daughters are whores" 7/16/10 Yurt.

A half nickel brain?


----------



## Yurt

Biggles said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> imo...the law will be upheld.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although there is quite a bit of debate with respect to state and local law enforcement officers
> authority to enforce immigration law (see discussion below), as a matter of practice, it is
> permissible for state and local law enforcement officers to inquire into the status of an immigrant
> during the course of their normal duties in enforcing state and local law. This practice allows state
> and local law enforcement officers to play an indirect role that is incidental to their general
> criminal enforcement authority.
> For example, when state or local officers question the immigration status of someone they have
> detained for a state or local violation, they may contact an ICE agent at the Law Enforcement
> Support Center (LESC).5 The federal agent may then place a detainer on the suspect, requesting
> the state official to keep the suspect in custody until a determination can be made as to the
> suspects immigration status. However, the continued detention of such a suspect beyond the
> needs of local law enforcement designed to aid in the enforcement of federal immigration laws
> may be unlawful.6
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl32270.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Immigration and Naturalization Act was considered by the second session of the 82nd Congress. The version of section 1324 passed by the House made no reference to arrest authority. Id., 81 Cal.App.3d at 1006, 147 Cal.Rptr. at 198. The version of section 1324 passed by the Senate authorized enforcement by "all other officers of the United States whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws." Conf.Rep. No. 1505, 82nd Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in 1952 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 1358, 1360, 1361. As the Barajas court concluded, the clear implication of that version of the statute was that the enforcement of section 1324 was limited, but that of sections 1325 and 1326 was not. As a compromise, however, the conferees agreed to adopt an amendment to section 1324(c) proposed by the House. According to the Conference Report, the amendment "struck out the words 'of the United States,' so that other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws would have authority to make an arrest for a violation of a provision of the act." Id. The amendment thus removed the limitations on enforcement authority in section 1324(c). This expansion of authority cannot be read as an implied limitation of sections 1325 and 1326. Instead, it implicitly made the enforcement authority as to all three statutes identical.
> 23
> *We therefore hold that federal law does not preclude local enforcement of the criminal provisions of the Act*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gonzales v. City of Peoria 722 F. 2d 468 (9th Cir. 1983)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. I agree it should be upheld.  Unfortunately, it will take going from AZ Court to the Liberal 9Th Circuit Court of Appeals to the US Supreme Court.  I am sure it will be fast tracked, but what a waste of time and taxpayer money.  Well, I guess that is the BO Agenda, isn't it?
Click to expand...


i would be surprised if the 9th actually upheld it based on their prior rulings, the 9th is very political and leans far left.  they are the most overturned court in the nation, so i don't hold out hope the 9th will uphold this based on their prior rulings...

as to obama wasting time and money, i mostly disagree.  i don't think it matters who is in office, this issue is ripe for scotus.  i think bush would have challenged this as well.  it is a federal vs. state issue and is all about power.  the feds want sole power over immigration, which case history suggests they have plenary power over creating the law regarding immigration, however, there is little scotus precedent to guide us in determining if AZ's law is constitutional.  

i agree that obama did not need to bring this, but, i think any president would have.


----------



## topspin

Yurt also said he was a lawyer then said he wasn't. That said righty faux outrage that was silent as a pin drop under bush is fucking hilarious.


----------



## Zona

topspin said:


> Yurt also said he was a lawyer then said he wasn't. That said righty faux outrage that was silent as a pin drop under bush is fucking hilarious.



Does anyone have a link to Yurt actaully admitting he wasnt a lawyer?  That would be fantastic.

This guy is as bad as Conhog.


----------



## WillowTree

Charles_Main said:


> All I have to say is this.
> 
> To Those Opposed to this law. Do not get all excited, this was one Judge, Appointed by a democrat, Arizona will no doubt appeal. I suspect this was always destined for the Supreme court.
> 
> I would also not be to excited as a Democrat, and Obama supporter as with over 70% of people in favor of this law, this might be a legal victory, but it could be a political defeat.
> 
> 
> To supporters of this law, I say. What, did you expect anything less from a Liberal Democrat Appointee? Don't let it get you down, there will be an appeal, and this is going to cost the Dems more votes. They just thumbed their noses at 77% of the American people, and are admittedly celebrating doing it. Obama won a victory for the Status Quo, DOING NOTHING. This will not play well for him with Independents at all.
> 
> Nuff said, I await the Appeal.



his polls are already down to 43& can't wait to see what they hit now.. it will be funny as hell..


----------



## topspin

I think he fessed up on jpp.


----------



## topspin

Yurt is cool, he just takes himself way to serious. He might be in law school about to graduate.


----------



## Yurt

Zona said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way 1070 supporters and racist assholes .....neener neener.  I told you this thing wouldn't go through and if it does, it will bankrupt this state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hey half nickel brain....see post 89 if you want to actually discuss issues and not jizz your spam all over the place
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Half nickel brain?
> 
> Who said ..."obama's daughters are whores" 7/16/10 Yurt.
> 
> A half nickel brain?
Click to expand...


ah....still lying about context...you know full well i said that to make fun of dante and show that making fun of politicians families is stupid, especially calling them whores...but do continue half nickel brain....btw...other democrats on this site repped me because of your lies about what i said....you're not fooling anyone and you and truthmattesr are the only hacks trying to peddle that bullshit


----------



## Wicked Jester

I hate to say this, but for once Chris Mathews of MSNBC gets it right.

Basically he stated that this ruling is a complete disaster for the dem's. It plays into the hands of the Tea Party movement and conservatives in general whose message is that government is getting way too big and powerful for its own good. They are doing everything they can to meddle in states affairs. Obama picked this fight. He once a again picked a fight that goes against what the majority of americans believe. In this case, The majority support the Arizona law, and want federal laws enforced just the same. The support for the law is coming from 3 sides of the aisle. Repubs, moderate/conservative dems, and independents. The polls don't lie.

Obama's mouth, ego, and abject liberalism are writing checks his falling popularity can't cash.

At least there is SOMEBODY in the MSM who isn't affraid to tell it like it is. I'm just shocked that it's ol' "thrill up the leg" Mathews.


Novembers going to be beyond interesting.


----------



## WillowTree

Wicked Jester said:


> I hate to say this, but for once Chris Mathews of MSNBC gets it right.
> 
> Basically he stated that this ruling is a complete disaster for the dem's. It plays into the hands of the Tea Party movement and conservatives in general whose message is that government is getting way to big and powerful for its own good. They are doing everything they can to meddle in states affairs. Obama picked this fight. He once a again picked a fight that goes against what the majority of americans believe. In this case, The majority support the Arizona law, and want federal laws enforced just the same. The support for the law is coming from 3 sides of the aisle. Repubs, moderate/conservative dems, and independents. The polls don't lie.
> 
> Obama's mouth, ego, and abject liberalism are writing checks his falling popularity can't cash.
> 
> 
> Novembers going to be beyond interesting.



he's freaking the hell out innhe?


----------



## Tank

Zona said:


> By the way 1070 supporters and racist assholes .....neener neener.  I told you this thing wouldn't go through and if it does, it will bankrupt this state.



You call other racist as you rejoice that illegal alians are still advailable to be exploited for there cheap labor.


----------



## Ravi

Tech_Esq said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll leave someone else you second point, but as to the first, you are clearly incorrect.
> 
> The AZ law is not federal law. The AZ law mirrors the federal law in its requirements, but it is a state law, that's why we're referring to it as the Arizona law, not the federal law.
> 
> But, even if it were federal law, local law enforcement can enforce federal law with the proper training. Here in Prince William county we've been doing it for 3 years now. Not one single substantiated case of racial profiling. If someone is arrested, their immigration status is check. Period. End of story. If you are here illegally, we call the paddy wagon at ICE and haul your ass back to where you came from.
> 
> 
> 
> You're confused. There is a big difference between CAN and HAVE TO. The injunction is against the MANDATING of the local officers enforcing immigration law...state or federal. And I said federal because clearly a state has no jurisdiction over deciding US citizenship.
> 
> Your county's actions are different in that it is their choice as a county to do it...no one is mandating they do it except the perhaps the citizens of the county.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The police in this county are MANDATED to determine immigration status of those arrested.* Sorry I used the permissive in my response, I didn't realize that was your point. Likewise, under the AZ law, AZ police officers would be mandated to determine status after making a stop for another crime or traffic infraction.
Click to expand...

By who? The only ones that can mandate them, as far as I can tell, are the city leaders. 

And also, with those arrested...I have no trouble with that.

Edit: well, I actually have a little trouble with those that are arrested, but not with those that are convicted.


----------



## Yurt

topspin said:


> I'm gonna pass on yurt the fake lawyers call on this. Obama needed this he had two straight losses in court vs oil.



care to explain why....other than obama needed a win

perhaps you could actually debate instead of obsessively focusing on what people may or may not do for a living....

put the bong down for a second leafy and try to rationally discuss this


----------



## Yurt

topspin said:


> Yurt is cool, he just takes himself way to serious. He might be in law school about to graduate.



nope...i'm a clean, articulate person with a slight indian accent who works at 7/11


----------



## Ravi

Liability said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ruling may be temporary, but it's still baseless.  There is NO chance of any irreparable harm had the judge not approved the temporary restraining order. Indeed, it is fantasy to claim that there is a likelihood that opponents of the legislation will ultimately prevail.
> 
> The ruling was a spineless and gutless abrogation of her actual judicial responsibility.
> 
> Let's not kid ourselves.  The liberal bias of the judicial branch is quite clear and this is a political question that is being treated (invalidly) as though it were properly justiciable.  In her eventual (final) ruling she, like the Higher Courts (with the possible exception of the SCOTUS) are likely going to rule by judicial fiat along the very same lines.
> 
> What possible legal justification can exist to prevent a cop from finding out if some illegal immigrant is an illegal immigrant?
> 
> It really is insane.  Libs and other kooks have clearly taken over the asylum.
> 
> 
> 
> Why should local police officers be *mandated* to enforce federal immigration law? And why should everyone be forced to carry identification?
> 
> Those two things clearly run up against the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  they don't "clearly" run up the Constitution.  They don't run up against the constitution at all.
> 
> Local Law enforcement is mandated by the laws of their respective states to do lots of things.  Why the fuck should a state not have the authority and power to direct the cops to check the immigration status of suspected illegal aliens when  they have been stopped for other reasons?
> 
> And nobody is required by the AZ law to carry I.D.  That's an invalid attempt to score a cheap debate point.  If you happen to come under suspicion after a traffic stop etc., but you also happen to be here legally (or, perhaps, you are a by-God citizen), you may get verbally challenged.  Your answers may suffice to assist you, but perhaps not.  Ooops.  You might get detained until you are cleared.  Gee.  That's oh so sucky.
> 
> But just think about it.  *That minor inconvenience weighed against isolating and identifying someone here illegally COULD turn out to be a life saver.   *There are some "bad guys" out there trying to get in for nefarious purposes.  It would be wonderful if this program happens to intercept an al qaeda piece of shit.
> 
> You guys get your panties in a wad like WAY too easily.
Click to expand...

You're wrong on all points. But this part I've bolded...that is why so many are willing to give up so much: fear. Laws written to harass the innocent are stupid laws.


----------



## Againsheila

Boltondelayed provisions that required immigrants to carry their papers

There is already a federal law that requires immigrants to carry their papers, is she gonna block that one too?


----------



## topspin

Oh if you can tell me where the outrage was during bush's time. Seems to me bush spent more time learning Spanish than deporting anyone. I want depotation more than you wingnuts, but I do find faux outrage hillarious.


----------



## topspin

Also calling it pollitics when a judge goes agaist you and a good ruling when they are with you is fabulously hacktastick.


----------



## SFC Ollie

I don't know anyone who was in favor of amnesty when bush was talking about it either. Besides Bush is history; we learn from that. At least some of us do.


----------



## Againsheila

CrusaderFrank said:


> AZ discriminates against legal citizens plain and simple.
> 
> Why should any legal citizen show any ID?  If I were in AZ I'd enter a Federal building, refuse to show papers then sue for discrimination.
> 
> Goose meet gander



When I went into the courthouse in Kent, they never asked me for ID, until I got to the person who I was there to pay my fine for being caught driving without proof of insurance.  

Why have ID if we don't have to show it?


----------



## Wicked Jester

Againsheila said:


> Boltondelayed provisions that required immigrants to carry their papers
> 
> There is already a federal law that requires immigrants to carry their papers, is she gonna block that one too?


Excellent point. What is going to happen is that it will go to the loons in the 9th circuit. They will no doubt uphold Boltons ruling, being the good lil' far lefties they are. It will then make it to the SCOTUS, and as they have done 75% of the time throughout the years, they will reverse the 9th circuit, and Arizona will be on their way to doing the right thing!

This is a political disaster for Obama and the dem's. Wait and see!


----------



## Yurt

hey ravi.....too scared to address post 98 and 102?  

apparently when you are asked to substantiate your claims, you conveniently don't see those posts....

must be nice to make claims without ever having to bother supporting them


----------



## Againsheila

Wicked Jester said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boltondelayed provisions that required immigrants to carry their papers
> 
> There is already a federal law that requires immigrants to carry their papers, is she gonna block that one too?
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent point. What is going to happen is that it will go to the loons in the 9th circuit. They will no doubt uphold Boltons ruling, being the good lil' far lefties they are. It will then make it to the SCOTUS, and as they have done 75% of the time throughout the years, they will reverse the 9th circuit, and Arizona will be on their way to doing the right thing!
> 
> This is a political disaster for Obama and the dem's. Wait and see!
Click to expand...


The supreme court gets to pick and choose what cases they hear, they sure as heck aren't gonna hear this one.


----------



## Yurt

topspin said:


> Also calling it pollitics when a judge goes agaist you and a good ruling when they are with you is fabulously hacktastick.



unfortunately, there is more politiking in judges decisions that you would like to believe

for example:  

though fed judges are appointed for life, many aspire to become an appellate judge....more prestige and money...but guess what, your decisions will influence the appointer...lean left and a rightie will not appoint you, and vice versa


----------



## Againsheila

SFC Ollie said:


> I don't know anyone who was in favor of amnesty when bush was talking about it either. Besides Bush is history; we learn from that. At least some of us do.



Just more proof that the dems and reps are the same.  Neither party is for the good of American, all our leaders are just in favor of filling their pocket books and continuing to get elected so they can continue to fill their pocket books.


----------



## Yurt

Againsheila said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boltondelayed provisions that required immigrants to carry their papers
> 
> There is already a federal law that requires immigrants to carry their papers, is she gonna block that one too?
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent point. What is going to happen is that it will go to the loons in the 9th circuit. They will no doubt uphold Boltons ruling, being the good lil' far lefties they are. It will then make it to the SCOTUS, and as they have done 75% of the time throughout the years, they will reverse the 9th circuit, and Arizona will be on their way to doing the right thing!
> 
> This is a political disaster for Obama and the dem's. Wait and see!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The supreme court gets to pick and choose what cases they hear, they sure as heck aren't gonna hear this one.
Click to expand...


why do you say that?  i think they will hear this one....


----------



## Wicked Jester

Againsheila said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boltondelayed provisions that required immigrants to carry their papers
> 
> There is already a federal law that requires immigrants to carry their papers, is she gonna block that one too?
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent point. What is going to happen is that it will go to the loons in the 9th circuit. They will no doubt uphold Boltons ruling, being the good lil' far lefties they are. It will then make it to the SCOTUS, and as they have done 75% of the time throughout the years, they will reverse the 9th circuit, and Arizona will be on their way to doing the right thing!
> 
> This is a political disaster for Obama and the dem's. Wait and see!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The supreme court gets to pick and choose what cases they hear, they sure as heck aren't gonna hear this one.
Click to expand...

BS!....This is a landmark case. Those justices are going to want to get in on this action.


----------



## Againsheila

Yurt said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent point. What is going to happen is that it will go to the loons in the 9th circuit. They will no doubt uphold Boltons ruling, being the good lil' far lefties they are. It will then make it to the SCOTUS, and as they have done 75% of the time throughout the years, they will reverse the 9th circuit, and Arizona will be on their way to doing the right thing!
> 
> This is a political disaster for Obama and the dem's. Wait and see!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The supreme court gets to pick and choose what cases they hear, they sure as heck aren't gonna hear this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why do you say that?  i think they will hear this one....
Click to expand...


Because they don't care about America anymore than our leaders do.  It became obvious when they refused no less than 5 times to hear the case about Obama not being a natural born citizen.  Truth is, if they wanted what was right, they would have heard that case.  Think about it.  This was a case that affects all of us and it would have taken, what, 12 minutes of their time?

American is dead, long live Cascadia.  <gonna have to think up a national anthem for my new country>


----------



## Ravi

Againsheila said:


> Boltondelayed provisions that required immigrants to carry their papers
> 
> There is already a federal law that requires immigrants to carry their papers, is she gonna block that one too?


Because...it makes EVERYONE have to carry their papers, not just immigrants.


----------



## Againsheila

Wicked Jester said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent point. What is going to happen is that it will go to the loons in the 9th circuit. They will no doubt uphold Boltons ruling, being the good lil' far lefties they are. It will then make it to the SCOTUS, and as they have done 75% of the time throughout the years, they will reverse the 9th circuit, and Arizona will be on their way to doing the right thing!
> 
> This is a political disaster for Obama and the dem's. Wait and see!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The supreme court gets to pick and choose what cases they hear, they sure as heck aren't gonna hear this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BS!....This is a landmark case. Those justices are going to want to get in on this action.
Click to expand...

Hope you're right.  I just don't have any faith left in our justice system.  Believe it or not, sometimes, I'm happier when I'm proven wrong.


----------



## Yurt

SFC Ollie said:


> I don't know anyone who was in favor of amnesty when bush was talking about it either. Besides Bush is history; we learn from that. At least some of us do.



exactly....and let's not forget how many on the right were against mcshamnesty....

mccain didn't lose just because obama ran on nothing but - mccain is bush - mccain lost because he had a shitty platform and record....


----------



## Ravi

Yurt said:


> hey ravi.....too scared to address post 98 and 102?
> 
> apparently when you are asked to substantiate your claims, you conveniently don't see those posts....
> 
> must be nice to make claims without ever having to bother supporting them


Were they your posts? Then I probably didn't read them.

Sometimes I enjoy discussing things with people whose opinion I seek and not the right wing loons.


----------



## Againsheila

Yurt said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know anyone who was in favor of amnesty when bush was talking about it either. Besides Bush is history; we learn from that. At least some of us do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> exactly....and let's not forget how many on the right were against mcshamnesty....
> 
> mccain didn't lose just because obama ran on nothing but - mccain is bush - mccain lost because he had a shitty platform and record....
Click to expand...


The republican party called me for a donation.  They wanted to save their "sinking ship".  I pointed out you can't save a sinking ship with the wrong captain, and hung up.


----------



## WillowTree

Againsheila said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> AZ discriminates against legal citizens plain and simple.
> 
> Why should any legal citizen show any ID?  If I were in AZ I'd enter a Federal building, refuse to show papers then sue for discrimination.
> 
> Goose meet gander
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I went into the courthouse in Kent, they never asked me for ID, until I got to the person who I was there to pay my fine for being caught driving without proof of insurance.
> 
> Why have ID if we don't have to show it?
Click to expand...


You must be white. If you are white you have to show your ID. This law only portends to brown people.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Againsheila said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know anyone who was in favor of amnesty when bush was talking about it either. Besides Bush is history; we learn from that. At least some of us do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> exactly....and let's not forget how many on the right were against mcshamnesty....
> 
> mccain didn't lose just because obama ran on nothing but - mccain is bush - mccain lost because he had a shitty platform and record....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The republican party called me for a donation.  They wanted to save their "sinking ship".  I pointed out you can't save a sinking ship with the wrong captain, and hung up.
Click to expand...


I must have got 20 emails and 10 letter asking me for a donation. I ignored all of them though I did vote for McCain it was in reality a vote against Obama. What pissed me off was, by the time we had our primaries McCain was already the candidate.


----------



## Navy1960

Luissa said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The judges  ruling was more or less a washing of the hands  of the issue,  but  the stay was  on  making  it a requirement to check status.  However that does not mean an officer cannot check status if that person has not been arrested, if this was so then  the entire ICE database that the Federal Govt. shares with state and local law enforcement  would have to be dismantled. The other portion that was stayed  was  the portion that required documentation. Basically SB-1070 has been rendered mute  as a result of this of this stay for the time being leaving  Arizona back where it started, where  the Federal Govt. looks the other way, while the   drugs, traffic in human beings,  murder,  and  American job loss continues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't crime down in Arizona and Texas? I saw one report done about a border town in Texas who said crime was down and the number of illegals crossing the border was down due to more border patrol.
> People keep saying we need to do something, but it seems we are.
Click to expand...


While  I really cannot answer  Luissa for  Texas,  and it's true that  crime has come down  in Arizona since  our economy has  fallen on hard times.   In fact it  points to a direct relationship in my opinion between illegal immigration and  crime.  As the number of  of those cheap labor jobs dry up then then number of those comming here illegally  tends to fall as does the crime rate.  However it does support  Luissa  a part of the arguement that  I agree with that  wants to focus on those that look for this cheap labor. 

In what officials caution is now a dangerous and even deadly crime wave, Phoenix, Arizona has become the kidnapping capital of America, with more incidents than any other city in the world outside of Mexico City and over 370 cases last year alone. But local authorities say Washington, DC is too obsessed with al Qaeda terrorists to care about what is happening in their own backyard right now. 
Kidnapping Capital of the U.S.A. - ABC News

 Things such as the above do not help the situtation though.


----------



## Ravi

Kidnapping in Arizona fell for the last three years...long before Arizona declared war on brown people.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Ravi said:


> Kidnapping in Arizona fell for the last three years...long before Arizona declared war on brown people.



It is not racial, when will you idiots learn this?


----------



## Ravi

SFC Ollie said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kidnapping in Arizona fell for the last three years...long before Arizona declared war on brown people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not racial, when will you idiots learn this?
Click to expand...

When you idiots stop being xenophobic.


----------



## WillowTree

Arizona is the kidnapp capital of the US of KKKA.. next to Mexico City.


----------



## Yurt

Ravi said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> hey ravi.....too scared to address post 98 and 102?
> 
> apparently when you are asked to substantiate your claims, you conveniently don't see those posts....
> 
> must be nice to make claims without ever having to bother supporting them
> 
> 
> 
> Were they your posts? Then I probably didn't read them.
> 
> Sometimes I enjoy discussing things with people whose opinion I seek and not the right wing loons.
Click to expand...


oh....you admit you're a coward

thanks!

too bad, because you and i agree on some issues, but when you spout lies you turn into an ugly far left wing hack....i would actually like to see you substantiate your claims, to back up your assertions....

unfortunately, i will never see this and you will only respond positively to me when i post something that supports your world view....

that is hackish behavior ravi


----------



## Yurt

Yurt said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ruling may be temporary, but it's still baseless.  There is NO chance of any irreparable harm had the judge not approved the temporary restraining order. Indeed, it is fantasy to claim that there is a likelihood that opponents of the legislation will ultimately prevail.
> 
> The ruling was a spineless and gutless abrogation of her actual judicial responsibility.
> 
> Let's not kid ourselves.  The liberal bias of the judicial branch is quite clear and this is a political question that is being treated (invalidly) as though it were properly justiciable.  In her eventual (final) ruling she, like the Higher Courts (with the possible exception of the SCOTUS) are likely going to rule by judicial fiat along the very same lines.
> 
> What possible legal justification can exist to prevent a cop from finding out if some illegal immigrant is an illegal immigrant?
> 
> It really is insane.  Libs and other kooks have clearly taken over the asylum.
> 
> 
> 
> Why should local police officers be *mandated* to enforce federal immigration law? And why should everyone be forced to carry identification?
> 
> Those two things clearly run up against the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> please point out where in the constitution these two things run up against....
> 
> thanks
Click to expand...


ravi can't back up her assertions....

yawn


----------



## topspin

So you guys are all pissed about white illegals from Canada too. Ok got it.


----------



## Navy1960

I'm going to repeat ths issue of war on brown people,  once more, if this law  was a meant to single out a people based on race then they would not have  go so far as to make  it a crime to  profile  on race by state officers.  What I find sad about this,  is  where is all this support for  all the   brown people who are taken advantage of daily here and elsewhere  and  die  yearly  trying to get here and sometimes at the hands of the same  scum that they have to pay to get here.  If anyone is exploiting these poor  people it's the  cartels that take advantage of them and those that employ them for cheap labor. No,  laws like the one  Arizona  has  tried  to put into place  at least  would have been a step in the right direction of actually  protecting these poor peoples who want nothing more than to come here and make a better life for themselves  free from  being exploited.  One thing more, all those that did the hard work needed to become citizen of this nation, brown, black white, of all colors, those that stood in line, waited and went through a broken system legally, to simply  look at Arizona and call this  a war on brown people is to insult those  people  that have done that work to actually become citizens. As rightly pointed out, this is not a  war on brown people its attempt to address an issue that the Federal has long ignored.


----------



## Yurt

topspin said:


> So you guys are all pissed about white illegals from Canada too. Ok got it.



care to cite any stats on how many there are?


----------



## SFC Ollie

Ravi said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kidnapping in Arizona fell for the last three years...long before Arizona declared war on brown people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not racial, when will you idiots learn this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you idiots stop being xenophobic.
Click to expand...


Ah, you made a joke.


----------



## SFC Ollie

topspin said:


> So you guys are all pissed about white illegals from Canada too. Ok got it.



Yes, if they are here illegally then i want them deported, I don't give a rats ass where they are from.


----------



## Navy1960

Former University of Maryland pharmacologist Clinton B. McCracken has been deported to his native Canada, ending more than three months of limbo since he pleaded guilty in March to growing marijuana.

"I am thrilled he's back home," said his lawyer, David B. Irwin. He said McCracken, 33, was transported north June 29, 17 days after immigration authorities picked him up in Baltimore and sent him to a detention center in York, Pa.
Former UM pharmacologist deported to Canada - Baltimore Sun

The fact is  Arizona does not  border Canada  it  borders  Mexico and the  vast majority of  illegal immigration is from that nation again this is not a war on brown people it is a matter of  enforcing law and creating a system that works for everyone.


----------



## needtawrite

blu said:


> the bill is basically useless now.


 
Not quite. They allowed the restriction on a government official telling an officer not to enforce the law. In other words, If a gub'ment official tells you not to do your job, you can refuse that order and do it anyway.

Basically, Arizona is trying to make the gub'ment do its job but with the help of the Clinton appointed judge, the gub'ment is officially refusing to do so.

The Governor is ready to take it to the supreme court.

It also doesn't hinder Sherriff Joe from going out tomorrow and rounding them up...like he's been doing.


----------



## Zona

Yurt said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> hey half nickel brain....see post 89 if you want to actually discuss issues and not jizz your spam all over the place
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Half nickel brain?
> 
> Who said ..."obama's daughters are whores" 7/16/10 Yurt.
> 
> A half nickel brain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ah....still lying about context...you know full well i said that to make fun of dante and show that making fun of politicians families is stupid, especially calling them whores...but do continue half nickel brain....btw...other democrats on this site repped me because of your lies about what i said....you're not fooling anyone and you and truthmattesr are the only hacks trying to peddle that bullshit
Click to expand...


..."obama's daughters are whores" 7/16/10 Yurt.


There is a rumor going around that you lied about being a lawyer......true?


----------



## Zona

Tank said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way 1070 supporters and racist assholes .....neener neener.  I told you this thing wouldn't go through and if it does, it will bankrupt this state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You call other racist as you rejoice that illegal *alians *are still *advailable* to be exploited for there cheap labor.
Click to expand...


Those illegal "ALIANS" can be drawn out by their atrocious spelling?    By the way, there is a law on the books that says we cannot hire illegals, yet over 50% of businesses here hire them.  They applaud Sheriff Joe for "rounding" up the illegals, yet he never busts the owners.  Rarely not never...I can think of once.


----------



## topspin

Not too many owners in his jail. Bet they are mostly white. I've seen his tent city on tv full of black and brown. Opps


----------



## Yurt

Zona said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> Half nickel brain?
> 
> Who said ..."obama's daughters are whores" 7/16/10 Yurt.
> 
> A half nickel brain?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ah....still lying about context...you know full well i said that to make fun of dante and show that making fun of politicians families is stupid, especially calling them whores...but do continue half nickel brain....btw...other democrats on this site repped me because of your lies about what i said....you're not fooling anyone and you and truthmattesr are the only hacks trying to peddle that bullshit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ..."obama's daughters are whores" 7/16/10 Yurt.
> 
> 
> There is a rumor going around that you lied about being a lawyer......true?
Click to expand...




another obsessed fan....are you legion troll?


----------



## JimH52

blu said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another activist decision....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is an activist decision anything you don't agree with?
Click to expand...


Perhaps Congress will get off their behinds and come up with a comprehensive immigration bill.  If the GOP gains the house next year, they should come up with something....but probably not.

This law was doomed from the start.  The Supreme Courts has consistently said immigration  issues are under federal jurisdiction.  The Governor's statement, "its a bump in the road" is as delusional as the entertainment duo Lushbaugh and Beck.


----------



## Subhumus

Zona said:


> By the way 1070 supporters and racist assholes .....neener neener.  I told you this thing wouldn't go through and if it does, it will bankrupt this state.



What an idiot!


----------



## Liability

JimH52 said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another activist decision....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is an activist decision anything you don't agree with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps Congress will get off their behinds and come up with a comprehensive immigration bill.  If the GOP gains the house next year, they should come up with something....but probably not.
> 
> This law was doomed from the start.  The Supreme Courts has consistently said immigration  issues are under federal jurisdiction.  The Governor's statement, "its a bump in the road" is as delusional as the entertainment duo Lushbaugh and Beck.
Click to expand...


There is a good deal of confusion here.

Immigration policies and many related matters are Federal legislative concerns.  But as was clearly posted here just yesterday, it has also long been clear that enforcement of such federal laws is a legitimate component of STATE law enforcement.  The Temporary Injunction has no valid, rational, constitutional basis.  It was decided erroneously.  Although it should be quickly dissolved, I don't believe that the federal judiciary will necessarily do what should be done legally.  We'll find out soon enough.

That said, I happen to favor a ground up overhaul of the US's Immigrations policies and laws.  Open us up to qualified, skilled, educated, productive people from all areas of the globe.  Figure out a way of doing it that doesn't have a basis in any racism.  Figure out a way that entails securing our borders. But get down to it and get it done.

By contrast, our nation is doing none of the above.

Why would any sovereign state just willy nillly open its borders to anybody who can illegally sneak in? It's a recipe for doom.  It's beyond just stupid.  It's insane.

On what Constitutional basis did this judge "decide," even temporarily, that a sovereign state has no authority or power to get information from suspects concerning the legality of their very presence in this country and within the borders of that sovereign state?   By what Constitutional authority can a federal judge prohibit a state from acting to (a) enforce the law and (b) protect its citizens?


----------



## topspin

funny how the faux outrage was almost non existant under Bush, now Obama is deporting more than Bush but my faux outrage meter is off the charts. thanks guys


----------



## Liability

JimH52 said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another activist decision....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is an activist decision anything you don't agree with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps Congress will get off their behinds and come up with a comprehensive immigration bill.  If the GOP gains the house next year, they should come up with something....but probably not.
> 
> This law was doomed from the start.  The Supreme Courts has consistently said immigration  issues are under federal jurisdiction.  The Governor's statement, "its a bump in the road" is as delusional as the entertainment duo Lushbaugh and Beck.
Click to expand...


There is a good deal of confusion here.

Immigration policies and many related matters are Federal legislative concerns.  But as was clearly posted here just yesterday, it has also long been clear that enforcement of such federal laws is a legitimate component of STATE law enforcement.  The Temporary Injunction has no valid, rational, constitutional basis.  It was decided erroneously.  Although it should be quickly dissolved, I don't believe that the federal judiciary will necessarily do what should be done legally.  We'll find out soon enough.

That said, I happen to favor a ground up overhaul of the US's Immigrations policies and laws.  Open us up to qualified, skilled, educated, productive people from all areas of the globe.  Figure out a way of doing it that doesn't have a basis in any racism.  Figure out a way that entails securing our borders. But get down to it and get it done.

By contrast, our nation is doing none of the above.

Why would any sovereign state just willy nillly open its borders to anybody who can illegally sneak in? It's a recipe for doom.  It's beyond just stupid.  It's insane.

On what Constitutional basis did this judge "decide," even temporarily, that a sovereign state has no authority or power to get information from suspects concerning the legality of their very presence in this country and within the borders of that sovereign state?   By what Constitutional authority can a federal judge prohibit a state from acting to (a) enforce the law and (b) protect its citizens?

IF this law is "doomed," it is not because of any alleged impropriety in the law.  IF this law is doomed it is entirely because the federal judicial system has abdicated its duty.


----------



## Liability

topspin said:


> funny how the faux outrage was almost non existant under Bush, now Obama is deporting more than Bush but my faux outrage meter is off the charts. thanks guys



Your fictional "facts" are (not surprisingly) unsupported.  That is pretty much unavoidable, of course. How could  you  possibly "footnote" a made-up "fact" which is created out of thin air as you compose a post?

Oh, and there's no faux outrage, either.   Many of us were quite vocal about immigration and open-border issues during the Bush Administration.  Many of us were openly critical of President Bush on that front at that time.  Your contention that the "outrage" was non-existent at that time is flatly false.


----------



## chanel

Yes. And we have that little unemployment/deficit problem now.  Our hospitality has expired.  Guests who overstay their welcome, like fish, start to stink after a while.


----------



## SFC Ollie

topspin said:


> Not too many owners in his jail. Bet they are mostly white. I've seen his tent city on tv full of black and brown. Opps



REALLY?



​


----------



## topspin

Good that you were against it under Bush, so was I.
 Let's deport them all. Want to see an increase in the bottom half's standard of living and boost to the economy in general. Exponentially increase deportations, how about a lottery $25,000 per illegal deported drop them off at the Southern Mexico boarder. 25G is after expenses


----------



## Liability

ATTENTION ALL ILLEGAL ALIENS.

You came here illegally right from the very start.  Your continued (ongoing) presence here is illegal for that reason.  Your illegal behavior offends us.

You are therefore being put on notice that you are required to go home.

You have our permission to consider us rude.  Frankly, we don't give a damn about your sensitivity.  

Leave.  Pack your bags and your family's bags.  Then, being sure to be quick about it, get out.

Your failure to comply with this command will result in adverse consequences to you including, but not limited to, your immediate arrest, prolonged detention, forfeiture of every asset in your possession and, ultimately, your forced departure.

Things can get very uncomfortable for you very quickly.  Why not avoid all that unpleasantness?  Do the smart thing, for a refreshing change of pace.  Leave, under your own steam, immediately.  

We'll all be happier for it.


----------



## WillowTree

JimH52 said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another activist decision....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is an activist decision anything you don't agree with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps Congress will get off their behinds and come up with a comprehensive immigration bill.  If the GOP gains the house next year, they should come up with something....but probably not.
> 
> This law was doomed from the start.  The Supreme Courts has consistently said immigration  issues are under federal jurisdiction.  The Governor's statement, "its a bump in the road" is as delusional as the entertainment duo Lushbaugh and Beck.
Click to expand...


the Republicans tried to pass "comprehensive" aka "amnesty" Americans didn't want it. they still don't want it WE WANT THE BORDERS SECURED.. what part of that shit don't you DUmmies understand???????


----------



## Ravi

Liability said:


> ATTENTION ALL ILLEGAL ALIENS.
> 
> You came here illegally right from the very start.  Your continued (ongoing) presence here is illegal for that reason.  Your illegal behavior offends us.
> 
> You are therefore being put on notice that you are required to go home.
> 
> You have our permission to consider us rude.  Frankly, we don't give a damn about your sensitivity.
> 
> Leave.  Pack your bags and your family's bags.  Then, being sure to be quick about it, get out.
> 
> Your failure to comply with this command will result in adverse consequences to you including, but not limited to, your immediate arrest, prolonged detention, forfeiture of every asset in your possession and, ultimately, your forced departure.
> 
> Things can get very uncomfortable for you very quickly.  Why not avoid all that unpleasantness?  Do the smart thing, for a refreshing change of pace.  Leave, under your own steam, immediately.
> 
> We'll all be happier for it.


Any cattle cars involved? Those are always fun.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Ravi said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> ATTENTION ALL ILLEGAL ALIENS.
> 
> You came here illegally right from the very start.  Your continued (ongoing) presence here is illegal for that reason.  Your illegal behavior offends us.
> 
> You are therefore being put on notice that you are required to go home.
> 
> You have our permission to consider us rude.  Frankly, we don't give a damn about your sensitivity.
> 
> Leave.  Pack your bags and your family's bags.  Then, being sure to be quick about it, get out.
> 
> Your failure to comply with this command will result in adverse consequences to you including, but not limited to, your immediate arrest, prolonged detention, forfeiture of every asset in your possession and, ultimately, your forced departure.
> 
> Things can get very uncomfortable for you very quickly.  Why not avoid all that unpleasantness?  Do the smart thing, for a refreshing change of pace.  Leave, under your own steam, immediately.
> 
> We'll all be happier for it.
> 
> 
> 
> Any cattle cars involved? Those are always fun.
Click to expand...


That can be arranged.


----------



## José

Liability said:


> ATTENTION ALL ILLEGAL ALIENS.
> 
> You came here illegally right from the very start.  Your continued (ongoing) presence here is illegal for that reason.  Your illegal behavior offends us.
> 
> You are therefore being put on notice that you are required to go home.
> 
> You have our permission to consider us rude.  Frankly, we don't give a damn about your sensitivity.
> 
> Leave.  Pack your bags and your family's bags.  Then, being sure to be quick about it, get out.
> 
> Your failure to comply with this command will result in adverse consequences to you including, but not limited to, your immediate arrest, prolonged detention, forfeiture of every asset in your possession and, ultimately, your forced departure.
> 
> Things can get very uncomfortable for you very quickly.  Why not avoid all that unpleasantness?  Do the smart thing, for a refreshing change of pace.  Leave, under your own steam, immediately.
> 
> We'll all be happier for it.



*BUT LIABILITY YOU SUPPORT A STATE RACIST TO THE BONE THAT ROLLS OUT THE RED CARPET TO EVERY SINGLE JEWISH IMMIGRANT WHO CHOOSES TO SETTLE THERE AT THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE'S EXPENSE.

WHY DON'T YOU EXTEND THE SAME COURTESY TO US, WHITE MEXICANS??

WE HAPPENED TO HAVE FALLEN FROM A **** IN MEXICO BUT OUR SKIN IS AS WHITE AS SNOW JUST LIKE THE AVERAGE AMERICAN.

COME ON LIABILITY... 

START PREPARING A BIG WELCOMING PARTY FOR US JUST LIKE THE JEWISH STATE YOU SUPPORT SO ARDENTLY DOES EVERY FUCKING TIME JEWISH IMMIGRANTS FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD ARRIVE AT BEN GURION INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT!!*


----------



## SFC Ollie

José;2557314 said:
			
		

> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> ATTENTION ALL ILLEGAL ALIENS.
> 
> You came here illegally right from the very start.  Your continued (ongoing) presence here is illegal for that reason.  Your illegal behavior offends us.
> 
> You are therefore being put on notice that you are required to go home.
> 
> You have our permission to consider us rude.  Frankly, we don't give a damn about your sensitivity.
> 
> Leave.  Pack your bags and your family's bags.  Then, being sure to be quick about it, get out.
> 
> Your failure to comply with this command will result in adverse consequences to you including, but not limited to, your immediate arrest, prolonged detention, forfeiture of every asset in your possession and, ultimately, your forced departure.
> 
> Things can get very uncomfortable for you very quickly.  Why not avoid all that unpleasantness?  Do the smart thing, for a refreshing change of pace.  Leave, under your own steam, immediately.
> 
> We'll all be happier for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *BUT LIABILITY YOU SUPPORT A STATE RACIST TO THE BONE THAT ROLLS OUT THE RED CARPET TO EVERY SINGLE JEWISH IMMIGRANT WHO CHOOSES TO SETTLE THERE AT THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE'S EXPENSE.
> 
> WHY DON'T YOU EXTEND THE SAME COURTESY TO US, WHITE MEXICANS??
> 
> WE HAPPENED TO HAVE FALLEN FROM A **** IN MEXICO BUT OUR SKIN IS AS WHITE AS SNOW JUST LIKE THE AVERAGE AMERICAN.
> 
> COME ON LIABILITY...
> 
> START PREPARING A BIG WELCOMING PARTY FOR US JUST LIKE THE JEWISH STATE YOU SUPPORT SO ARDENTLY DOES EVERY FUCKING TIME JEWISH IMMIGRANTS FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD ARRIVE AT BEN GURION INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT!!*
Click to expand...


Come on in, as long as it is done legally I don't care if you are from mars and are sky blue pink with purple polka dots.


----------



## Wicked Jester

José;2557314 said:
			
		

> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> ATTENTION ALL ILLEGAL ALIENS.
> 
> You came here illegally right from the very start.  Your continued (ongoing) presence here is illegal for that reason.  Your illegal behavior offends us.
> 
> You are therefore being put on notice that you are required to go home.
> 
> You have our permission to consider us rude.  Frankly, we don't give a damn about your sensitivity.
> 
> Leave.  Pack your bags and your family's bags.  Then, being sure to be quick about it, get out.
> 
> Your failure to comply with this command will result in adverse consequences to you including, but not limited to, your immediate arrest, prolonged detention, forfeiture of every asset in your possession and, ultimately, your forced departure.
> 
> Things can get very uncomfortable for you very quickly.  Why not avoid all that unpleasantness?  Do the smart thing, for a refreshing change of pace.  Leave, under your own steam, immediately.
> 
> We'll all be happier for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *BUT LIABILITY YOU SUPPORT A STATE RACIST TO THE BONE THAT ROLLS OUT THE RED CARPET TO EVERY SINGLE JEWISH IMMIGRANT WHO CHOOSES TO SETTLE THERE AT THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE'S EXPENSE.
> 
> WHY DON'T YOU EXTEND THE SAME COURTESY TO US, WHITE MEXICANS??
> 
> WE HAPPENED TO HAVE FALLEN FROM A **** IN MEXICO BUT OUR SKIN IS AS WHITE AS SNOW JUST LIKE THE AVERAGE AMERICAN.
> 
> COME ON LIABILITY...
> 
> START PREPARING A BIG WELCOMING PARTY FOR US JUST LIKE THE JEWISH STATE YOU SUPPORT SO ARDENTLY DOES EVERY FUCKING TIME JEWISH IMMIGRANTS FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD ARRIVE AT BEN GURION INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT!!*
Click to expand...

That would be "LEGAL IMMIGRANTS!"....douchebag!

There is a huge difference. But you keep trying to nail that Jello to the wall!.....I like Jello. Especially the red kind!


----------



## chanel

They still haven't grasped the concept of "illegal immigrant" vs. guest workers and naturalized citizens.  I believe a third grader knows the difference.


----------



## Wicked Jester

chanel said:


> They still haven't grasped the concept of "illegal immigrant" vs. guest workers and naturalized citizens.  I believe a third grader knows the difference.


One must never forget, Chanel, we are dealing with liberal reactionaries here. We are not dealing with the brightest lights on the ol' christmas tree o' life!


----------



## LilOlLady

With SB1070 amended the word "required" will be left out and should not have been in SB1070 but still may be overturned on appeal. because the judge did not rule on the unconstitutionality of the law, just an injuction to stop it from going into effect today. She may well rule in favor.
SB1070 really was not needed but arizona wanted to go further then the Fed. Immig. and Nat. Act and REQUIRE citizenship papers and enforcement by state and local officers.  *FINA also allow racial profiling*.

State and local law enforcement officials have the *general power to investigate and arrest *violators of federal immigration statutes without prior INS knowledge or approval, as long as they are *authorized to do so by state law*. There is no extant federal limitation on this authority. The 1996 immigration control legislation passed by Congress was intended to *encourage states and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws*. Immigration officers and local law enforcement officers *may detain *an individual for a brief warrant less interrogation where circumstances create a reasonable suspicion that the individual is illegally present in the U.S. Specific facts constituting a reasonable suspicion include evasive, nervous, or erratic behavior; *dress or speech indicating foreign citizenship*; and presence in an area known to contain a concentration of illegal aliens. *Hispanic appearance alone is not sufficient*. Immigration officers and police must have a valid warrant or valid employer's consent to enter workplaces or residences


----------



## LilOlLady

needtawrite said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> the bill is basically useless now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite. They allowed the restriction on a government official *telling an officer not to enforce the law. *In other words, If a gub'ment official tells you not to do your job, you can refuse that order and do it anyway.
> 
> Basically, Arizona is trying to make the gub'ment do its job but with the help of the Clinton appointed judge, the gub'ment is officially refusing to do so.
> 
> The Governor is ready to take it to the supreme court.
> 
> It also *doesn't hinder Sherriff Joe *from going out tomorrow and rounding them up...like he's been doing.
Click to expand...


That is not true, she said you cannot *REQUIRE *your officer to enforce immigration law.
FINA allows Sheriff Joe to do what he has been doing. Assisting federal agents.


----------



## LilOlLady

Arizona cannot *deport* illegal immigrants under SB1070Jul 28, 2010 ... If illegal immigrants are *detained, *Arizona law enforcement can *contact Immigration and Customs Enforcement *to verify the person's residency ...
personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/2010/.../sb-1070-arizona-immigration/

Arizona has been doing this all along as has Sheriff Joe


----------



## Againsheila

JimH52 said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another activist decision....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is an activist decision anything you don't agree with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps Congress will get off their behinds and come up with a comprehensive immigration bill.  If the GOP gains the house next year, they should come up with something....but probably not.
> 
> This law was doomed from the start.  The Supreme Courts has consistently said immigration  issues are under federal jurisdiction.  The Governor's statement, "its a bump in the road" is as delusional as the entertainment duo Lushbaugh and Beck.
Click to expand...


Now listen up.  The Federal Government is refusing to do it's job.  We have a federal park right here in the USA that Americans are advised not to enter.  We have a Declaration of Independence that tells us when we aren't being represented we not only have a right, but the duty to put in a Government that does represent us.  

If our government will not enforce  our immigration laws and will not let the states do so, our only choice is revolution.


----------



## WillowTree

Againsheila said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> is an activist decision anything you don't agree with?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps Congress will get off their behinds and come up with a comprehensive immigration bill.  If the GOP gains the house next year, they should come up with something....but probably not.
> 
> This law was doomed from the start.  The Supreme Courts has consistently said immigration  issues are under federal jurisdiction.  The Governor's statement, "its a bump in the road" is as delusional as the entertainment duo Lushbaugh and Beck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now listen up.  The Federal Government is refusing to do it's job.  We have a federal park right here in the USA that Americans are advised not to enter.  We have a Declaration of Independence that tells us when we aren't being represented we not only have a right, but the duty to put in a Government that does represent us.
> 
> If our government will not enforce  our immigration laws and will not let the states do so, our only choice is revolution.
Click to expand...


Yes, that Jackazz Napolitano says our borders are safer than they've ever been then turns around and puts up a sign warning Americans they cannot be safe in America. What a bunch of fucking liars are in dc. obie wan lies Americans die.


----------



## Navy1960

LilOlLady said:


> Arizona cannot *deport* illegal immigrants under SB1070Jul 28, 2010 ... If illegal immigrants are *detained, *Arizona law enforcement can *contact Immigration and Customs Enforcement *to verify the person's residency ...
> personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/2010/.../sb-1070-arizona-immigration/
> 
> Arizona has been doing this all along as has Sheriff Joe



Lily, our Sheriff is not deporting  anyone, in fact these  individuals he arrests  that have  broken  Federal Law are no different than anyone  that is arrested for committing a  Federal crime.  They are then bused to ICE and then deported.  One other fact Lily,  it is a FEDERAL Law that  non-resident aliens and green card holders must  keep  ID on them at all times.   Non-resident Aliens  must also register with ICE and enter  the nation from a  vaild point of entry and failure to do so will result in deportation.   It is a very common for state and local law enforcement to effect the arrest of those that have committed the FEDERAL CRIME  of entering this nation illegally   to be arrested, detained  and then turned over to ICE for  deportation.  What  SB-1070 attempted to do was to make it a state law  that  state law enforcement officials  were required to check immigration status should a person come into contact with a law enforcement official and   there was reasonable suspicion that the person was in this nation illegally.  Judge Boltons ruling while staying  that part of the law and incorrectly  staying the  ID part of the law  did not  keep local law enforcement from using their own judgement  in making such arrests as well as  keeping  intact the practice of  checking status   after an arrest is made as is the case with  the ICE  "Secure Communites" program.   I fail to understand  why  anyone would  advocate  for the wilful violation of  Federal Law  and  the continued abuse of  poor people who wish nothing better  than to come to this nation and make a better life for themselves.  All the effort  over  SB-1070 if it were directed  in actually  comming up with a  decent  immigration policy that included  enforcing our laws, cracking down on those that employ illegal Aliens, reforming the US citizenship process, and  a policy that directs those  that are here illegally to go to the back of the line, as well as a guest worker program.  Those are just a few things we can do, and it seems to me  if we as a nation can run about  bailing out  companies  with billions of dollars that  got that way through their own misdeeds, then we  can redirect some  of that so called bailout money to actually fix this problem so Arizona does not have to pass bills like SB-1070.



Nonimmigrant visitors who do not comply with special registration requirements or other terms of their admission to the United States during their stay will be considered out of status and may be subject to arrest, detention, fines and/or removal from the country. Any future application for an immigration benefit may also be impacted. Decisions in these instances will be made based on an individual basis and are dependent on the circumstances of each case. Certain alien crewmen, described at section 101(a)(15)(D) of the Act, who are subject to special registration, are exempted from the departure control requirements of 8 CFR section 264.1(f) (8).

The requirement to register does not apply to U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents (green card holders), refugees, asylum applicants (depending upon date asylum was pending or approved), asylum grantees, and diplomats or others admitted under "A" or "G" visas. Nonimmigrants who must follow these special procedures will also have to use specially designated ports when they leave the country and report in person to an immigration officer at the designated port on their departure date.
http://www.ice.gov/pi/specialregistration/index.htm


----------



## Oddball

JimH52 said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another activist decision....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is an activist decision anything you don't agree with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps Congress will get off their behinds and come up with a comprehensive immigration bill.  If the GOP gains the house next year, they should come up with something....but probably not.
> 
> This law was doomed from the start.  *The Supreme Courts has consistently said immigration  issues are under federal jurisdiction. *.....
Click to expand...

So are drug laws...Yet, that hasn't stopped states from enforcing them and the feds have zero problem with it.


----------



## Oddball

blu said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another activist decision....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is an activist decision anything you don't agree with?
Click to expand...

It's definitely activist when the judge in question cherry picks the law for what they find "acceptable" and letting it stand, rather than just striking it down in toto.


----------



## Biggles

Sheriff Dever from Cochise County Arizona, has been enforcing the US Immigration law for 30 years. He has been Sheriff for 15 years and his department has been enforcing the US law. His department is well trained from day one on how to determine probable cause. The "question" of legality status is the last thing the asks. Only after the original infraction is determined and if and only if he or she determines there is a high probability of the suspect of being in the US illegally does the deputy question the suspect about their citizenship and legality in America. The Arizona law has been in practice for decades. There have been nearly zero complaints regarding any racial profiling or bias.

The Sheriff asks, as do 80% of Americans, that 1) our border is secured via a fence, 2) personnel and equipment resources be put in place, including surveillance technology both along the ground and with use of drones, and 3) through this infrastructure that on any point along the border, law enforcement will be able to detect each and every incursion across the border to apprehend the illegal(s).

Very simple to stop the illegal issue.  But BO and his Liberal Administration ignore this war.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Biggles said:


> Sheriff Dever from Cochise County Arizona, has been enforcing the US Immigration law for 30 years. He has been Sheriff for 15 years and his department has been enforcing the US law. His department is well trained from day one on how to determine probable cause. The "question" of legality status is the last thing the asks. Only after the original infraction is determined and if and only if he or she determines there is a high probability of the suspect of being in the US illegally does the deputy question the suspect about their citizenship and legality in America. The Arizona law has been in practice for decades. There have been nearly zero complaints regarding any racial profiling or bias.
> 
> The Sheriff asks, as do 80% of Americans, that 1) our border is secured via a fence, 2) personnel and equipment resources be put in place, including surveillance technology both along the ground and with use of drones, and 3) through this infrastructure that on any point along the border, law enforcement will be able to detect each and every incursion across the border to apprehend the illegal(s).
> 
> Very simple to stop the illegal issue.  But BO and his Liberal Administration ignore this war.



To be fair, they have all ignored it, from Nixon on.


----------



## Wicked Jester

SFC Ollie said:


> Biggles said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sheriff Dever from Cochise County Arizona, has been enforcing the US Immigration law for 30 years. He has been Sheriff for 15 years and his department has been enforcing the US law. His department is well trained from day one on how to determine probable cause. The "question" of legality status is the last thing the asks. Only after the original infraction is determined and if and only if he or she determines there is a high probability of the suspect of being in the US illegally does the deputy question the suspect about their citizenship and legality in America. The Arizona law has been in practice for decades. There have been nearly zero complaints regarding any racial profiling or bias.
> 
> The Sheriff asks, as do 80% of Americans, that 1) our border is secured via a fence, 2) personnel and equipment resources be put in place, including surveillance technology both along the ground and with use of drones, and 3) through this infrastructure that on any point along the border, law enforcement will be able to detect each and every incursion across the border to apprehend the illegal(s).
> 
> Very simple to stop the illegal issue.  But BO and his Liberal Administration ignore this war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be fair, they have all ignored it, from Nixon on.
Click to expand...

And thanks to a brave Governor like Jan Brewer, and the majority of americans support for the law, it can no longer be ignored!


----------



## WillowTree

Wicked Jester said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biggles said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sheriff Dever from Cochise County Arizona, has been enforcing the US Immigration law for 30 years. He has been Sheriff for 15 years and his department has been enforcing the US law. His department is well trained from day one on how to determine probable cause. The "question" of legality status is the last thing the asks. Only after the original infraction is determined and if and only if he or she determines there is a high probability of the suspect of being in the US illegally does the deputy question the suspect about their citizenship and legality in America. The Arizona law has been in practice for decades. There have been nearly zero complaints regarding any racial profiling or bias.
> 
> The Sheriff asks, as do 80% of Americans, that 1) our border is secured via a fence, 2) personnel and equipment resources be put in place, including surveillance technology both along the ground and with use of drones, and 3) through this infrastructure that on any point along the border, law enforcement will be able to detect each and every incursion across the border to apprehend the illegal(s).
> 
> Very simple to stop the illegal issue.  But BO and his Liberal Administration ignore this war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be fair, they have all ignored it, from Nixon on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And thanks to a brave Governor like Jan Brewer, and the majority of americans support for the law, it can no longer be ignored!
Click to expand...


December. Lame Duck, Total amnesty. Remember who told you.


----------



## 007

WillowTree said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be fair, they have all ignored it, from Nixon on.
> 
> 
> 
> And thanks to a brave Governor like Jan Brewer, and the majority of americans support for the law, it can no longer be ignored!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> December. Lame Duck, Total amnesty. Remember who told you.
Click to expand...


January, repeal... everything from obamacare to a possible amnesty... or let's have a damn Civil War.


----------



## Foxfyre

Pale Rider said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> And thanks to a brave Governor like Jan Brewer, and the majority of americans support for the law, it can no longer be ignored!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> December. Lame Duck, Total amnesty. Remember who told you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> January, repeal... everything from obamacare to a possible amnesty... or let's have a damn Civil War.
Click to expand...


We can't repeal without a super majority in both chambers at least until 2012.  But we can slow down this freight train considerably if we can just achieve even a small majority of rational conservatives--I don't care if they are Republican, Democrat, or Mongolian raiders--in November.

Let's hold off on the civil war though until we can get some sane people back into Washington.


----------



## Luissa

Dude said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another activist decision....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is an activist decision anything you don't agree with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's definitely activist when the judge in question cherry picks the law for what they find "acceptable" and letting it stand, rather than just striking it down in toto.
Click to expand...


Too bad her reputation says something different. Her record shows she has never been an activist judge, and unbiased.


----------



## Luissa

Pale Rider said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> And thanks to a brave Governor like Jan Brewer, and the majority of americans support for the law, it can no longer be ignored!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> December. Lame Duck, Total amnesty. Remember who told you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> January, repeal... everything from obamacare to a possible amnesty... or let's have a damn Civil War.
Click to expand...


Why? because we elected a black man to be President? I would believe you guys more when you say it his policies if you had not started bitching the day he was elected and continue to buy into the birther crap. Please continue to make yourself look like a complete moron.


----------



## 007

Luissa said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> December. Lame Duck, Total amnesty. Remember who told you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> January, repeal... everything from obamacare to a possible amnesty... or let's have a damn Civil War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why? because we elected a black man to be President? I would believe you guys more when you say it his policies if you had not started bitching the day he was elected and continue to buy into the birther crap. Please continue to make yourself look like a complete moron.
Click to expand...


I see even though I've turned over a new leaf, and have decided not to insult people who don't insult me, you venom spitting wenches are still spitting like a herd of old camels.

Bad is bad is bad, and obama is bad. I don't give a rats ass what color he is, no matter what your lose lips spew.

And birther, yup, that's me. I'm one of those millions of people here in America that would like to see some sort of proof of where obama was born, other than the stuff that points to Kenya. So far, nothing that even remotely says he was born in America has surfaced. Hmmm... to bad for the non birthers. They look even more silly than the birthers.

Proud to be a birther. A true badge of honor.


----------



## Biggles

Luissa said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> December. Lame Duck, Total amnesty. Remember who told you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> January, repeal... everything from obamacare to a possible amnesty... or let's have a damn Civil War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why? because we elected a black man to be President? I would believe you guys more when you say it his policies if you had not started bitching the day he was elected and continue to buy into the birther crap. Please continue to make yourself look like a complete moron.
Click to expand...


WHY is it EVERY TIME any issue is talked about, you liberals ALWAYS go to the RACE card?  WHY??  Just stay on topic.  I am so flippin tired of the RACE card being tossed into the discussion.  You all make me sick.


----------



## Liability

Ravi said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> ATTENTION ALL ILLEGAL ALIENS.
> 
> You came here illegally right from the very start.  Your continued (ongoing) presence here is illegal for that reason.  Your illegal behavior offends us.
> 
> You are therefore being put on notice that you are required to go home.
> 
> You have our permission to consider us rude.  Frankly, we don't give a damn about your sensitivity.
> 
> Leave.  Pack your bags and your family's bags.  Then, being sure to be quick about it, get out.
> 
> Your failure to comply with this command will result in adverse consequences to you including, but not limited to, your immediate arrest, prolonged detention, forfeiture of every asset in your possession and, ultimately, your forced departure.
> 
> Things can get very uncomfortable for you very quickly.  Why not avoid all that unpleasantness?  Do the smart thing, for a refreshing change of pace.  Leave, under your own steam, immediately.
> 
> We'll all be happier for it.
> 
> 
> 
> Any cattle cars involved? Those are always fun.
Click to expand...


That retarded reference to Nazi Germany was beneath even you.

WTF is wrong with you?  Is that fundamentally dishonest bullshit hyperbole the only tool in your toolbox?

Since you aren't in the mood for honest discussion, I'll just clear your dishonesty up.  There is nothing Nazi-like in ANY sovereign state protecting its own borders and exercising its sovereign right (and responsibility) to control who may or may not enter or remain within those borders.  Such matters are generally attended to via laws.  When aliens violate those laws, the sovereign state is perfectly, justifiably and morally authorized to enforce those laws.

Somewhere along the line, these obvious and perfectly accurate statements of fact have been forgotten by our government and even many of our fellow citizens.

The real question is "why?"  Why should those who don't even bother themselves with complying with our basic immigration laws be tolerated?  I mean, really, what the fuck?  By what claim of right can an illegal fucking alien be heard to complain about getting fucking caught and sent right back wherever the fuck he came from?  How does enforcing our own perfectly valid, legitimate and entirely moral laws make us the bad guys?

Your thinking is truly all fucked up.


----------



## 007

Biggles said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> January, repeal... everything from obamacare to a possible amnesty... or let's have a damn Civil War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why? because we elected a black man to be President? I would believe you guys more when you say it his policies if you had not started bitching the day he was elected and continue to buy into the birther crap. Please continue to make yourself look like a complete moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHY is it EVERY TIME any issue is talked about, you liberals ALWAYS go to the RACE card?  WHY??  Just stay on topic.  I am so flippin tired of the RACE card being tossed into the discussion.  You all make me sick.
Click to expand...


That's all they have. "The little boy who cried wolf." They've cut their own throats with it though. They've used it so often out of context, that it's lost it's sting and just makes them look like idiots.


----------



## Liability

José;2557314 said:
			
		

> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> ATTENTION ALL ILLEGAL ALIENS.
> 
> You came here illegally right from the very start.  Your continued (ongoing) presence here is illegal for that reason.  Your illegal behavior offends us.
> 
> You are therefore being put on notice that you are required to go home.
> 
> You have our permission to consider us rude.  Frankly, we don't give a damn about your sensitivity.
> 
> Leave.  Pack your bags and your family's bags.  Then, being sure to be quick about it, get out.
> 
> Your failure to comply with this command will result in adverse consequences to you including, but not limited to, your immediate arrest, prolonged detention, forfeiture of every asset in your possession and, ultimately, your forced departure.
> 
> Things can get very uncomfortable for you very quickly.  Why not avoid all that unpleasantness?  Do the smart thing, for a refreshing change of pace.  Leave, under your own steam, immediately.
> 
> We'll all be happier for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *BUT LIABILITY YOU SUPPORT A STATE RACIST TO THE BONE THAT ROLLS OUT THE RED CARPET TO EVERY SINGLE JEWISH IMMIGRANT WHO CHOOSES TO SETTLE THERE AT THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE'S EXPENSE.
> 
> WHY DON'T YOU EXTEND THE SAME COURTESY TO US, WHITE MEXICANS??
> 
> WE HAPPENED TO HAVE FALLEN FROM A **** IN MEXICO BUT OUR SKIN IS AS WHITE AS SNOW JUST LIKE THE AVERAGE AMERICAN.
> 
> COME ON LIABILITY...
> 
> START PREPARING A BIG WELCOMING PARTY FOR US JUST LIKE THE JEWISH STATE YOU SUPPORT SO ARDENTLY DOES EVERY FUCKING TIME JEWISH IMMIGRANTS FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD ARRIVE AT BEN GURION INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT!!*
Click to expand...


Nice use of all caps, dipshit.  That always makes the idiotic stupid bullshit you spew so much more persuasive.

The fact that you say such dishonest things (in all caps no less) reflects poorly on you.  And the fact that assholes like you always couch your fucking imbecility in terms of race is also something which outs you as the scumbag you are.

Now, let's straighten your fucking dishonest bullshit out.

Support of the right of Israel to exist, you shit-sucker, has no relationship whatsoever to our own immigration policies.  Sorry you always have to have the glaringly obvious explained to you, ya dishonest, ignorant, retarded asshole-muncher.

Now, go eat some more shit and choke on your own vomit.


----------



## Ravi

Liability said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> ATTENTION ALL ILLEGAL ALIENS.
> 
> You came here illegally right from the very start.  Your continued (ongoing) presence here is illegal for that reason.  Your illegal behavior offends us.
> 
> You are therefore being put on notice that you are required to go home.
> 
> You have our permission to consider us rude.  Frankly, we don't give a damn about your sensitivity.
> 
> Leave.  Pack your bags and your family's bags.  Then, being sure to be quick about it, get out.
> 
> Your failure to comply with this command will result in adverse consequences to you including, but not limited to, your immediate arrest, prolonged detention, forfeiture of every asset in your possession and, ultimately, your forced departure.
> 
> Things can get very uncomfortable for you very quickly.  Why not avoid all that unpleasantness?  Do the smart thing, for a refreshing change of pace.  Leave, under your own steam, immediately.
> 
> We'll all be happier for it.
> 
> 
> 
> Any cattle cars involved? Those are always fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That retarded reference to Nazi Germany was beneath even you.
> 
> WTF is wrong with you?  Is that fundamentally dishonest bullshit hyperbole the only tool in your toolbox?
> 
> Since you aren't in the mood for honest discussion, I'll just clear your dishonesty up.  There is nothing Nazi-like in ANY sovereign state protecting its own borders and exercising its sovereign right (and responsibility) to control who may or may not enter or remain within those borders.  Such matters are generally attended to via laws.  When aliens violate those laws, the sovereign state is perfectly, justifiably and morally authorized to enforce those laws.
> 
> Somewhere along the line, these obvious and perfectly accurate statements of fact have been forgotten by our government and even many of our fellow citizens.
> 
> The real question is "why?"  Why should those who don't even bother themselves with complying with our basic immigration laws be tolerated?  I mean, really, what the fuck?  By what claim of right can an illegal fucking alien be heard to complain about getting fucking caught and sent right back wherever the fuck he came from?  How does enforcing our own perfectly valid, legitimate and entirely moral laws make us the bad guys?
> 
> Your thinking is truly all fucked up.
Click to expand...

It was your comment about taking away all their belongings...you really should think before you post, it will avoid these slips you keep making about your real agenda.


----------



## Oddball

Luissa said:


> Why? because we elected a black man to be President? I would believe you guys more when you say it his policies if you had not started bitching the day he was elected and continue to buy into the birther crap. Please continue to make yourself look like a complete moron.


----------



## 007

Dude said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why? because we elected a black man to be President? I would believe you guys more when you say it his policies if you had not started bitching the day he was elected and continue to buy into the birther crap. Please continue to make yourself look like a complete moron.
Click to expand...


Damn it... gave out to much rep in the last twenty four hours. I'll get back to ya for that one Dude... out-fucking-standing man...


----------



## Liability

chanel said:


> They still haven't grasped the concept of "illegal immigrant" vs. guest workers and naturalized citizens.  I believe a third grader knows the difference.





Ravi said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any cattle cars involved? Those are always fun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That retarded reference to Nazi Germany was beneath even you.
> 
> WTF is wrong with you?  Is that fundamentally dishonest bullshit hyperbole the only tool in your toolbox?
> 
> Since you aren't in the mood for honest discussion, I'll just clear your dishonesty up.  There is nothing Nazi-like in ANY sovereign state protecting its own borders and exercising its sovereign right (and responsibility) to control who may or may not enter or remain within those borders.  Such matters are generally attended to via laws.  When aliens violate those laws, the sovereign state is perfectly, justifiably and morally authorized to enforce those laws.
> 
> Somewhere along the line, these obvious and perfectly accurate statements of fact have been forgotten by our government and even many of our fellow citizens.
> 
> The real question is "why?"  Why should those who don't even bother themselves with complying with our basic immigration laws be tolerated?  I mean, really, what the fuck?  By what claim of right can an illegal fucking alien be heard to complain about getting fucking caught and sent right back wherever the fuck he came from?  How does enforcing our own perfectly valid, legitimate and entirely moral laws make us the bad guys?
> 
> Your thinking is truly all fucked up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was your comment about taking away all their belongings...you really should think before you post, it will avoid these slips you keep making about your real agenda.
Click to expand...


More Ravi bullshit.  Out of that entire post of mine, you objected to an asset forfeiture line and your entire "Nazi" hyperbole was meant to refer to that one reference?  

Stop lying.  You sound retarded.

And, oh, by the way, asset forfeiture is often a useful tool in law enforcement. Take the profit motive out of their illegal entry and illegal presence here and maybe  they won't be so inclined to illegally enter our country in the first damn place.  If you don't like that, too bad.  You're wrong.  Because, whether  you like it or not, we actually *are* entitled to enforce our own laws.

And that, you liar, _*is*_ my real agenda.  Makes me wonder what your real agenda might be.


----------



## Angelhair

Dude said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> is an activist decision anything you don't agree with?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps Congress will get off their behinds and come up with a comprehensive immigration bill.  If the GOP gains the house next year, they should come up with something....but probably not.
> 
> This law was doomed from the start.  *The Supreme Courts has consistently said immigration  issues are under federal jurisdiction. *.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So are drug laws...Yet, that hasn't stopped states from enforcing them and the feds have zero problem with it.
Click to expand...


_Can someone please tell me how a comprehensive immigration bill will stop people from jumping the fence, swimming across????  The SECOND after this country reports a reform, you will see not thousands but MILLIONS jumping the fence!  Just wait and see- you read it here._


----------



## Angelhair

needtawrite said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> the bill is basically useless now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite. They allowed the restriction on a government official telling an officer not to enforce the law. In other words, If a gub'ment official tells you not to do your job, you can refuse that order and do it anyway.
> 
> Basically, Arizona is trying to make the gub'ment do its job but with the help of the Clinton appointed judge, the gub'ment is officially refusing to do so.
> 
> The Governor is ready to take it to the supreme court.
> 
> It also doesn't hinder Sherriff Joe from going out tomorrow and rounding them up...like he's been doing.
Click to expand...


_Also, the way I understand it, no more sanctuary cities?_


----------



## Angelhair

CrusaderFrank said:


> We are a nation divided



_'Thank you' Mr. Obama.  Never in all my life have I see so many races fighting each other.  Never have I seen so much anger, pain and disgust coming from so many! 'Thank you' for being a divider and  not a uniter as you promised.  Please God, let these next two years go by fast.  Please don't allow more damage to be done to this great nation!_


----------



## Ravi

Liability said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> They still haven't grasped the concept of "illegal immigrant" vs. guest workers and naturalized citizens.  I believe a third grader knows the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> That retarded reference to Nazi Germany was beneath even you.
> 
> WTF is wrong with you?  Is that fundamentally dishonest bullshit hyperbole the only tool in your toolbox?
> 
> Since you aren't in the mood for honest discussion, I'll just clear your dishonesty up.  There is nothing Nazi-like in ANY sovereign state protecting its own borders and exercising its sovereign right (and responsibility) to control who may or may not enter or remain within those borders.  Such matters are generally attended to via laws.  When aliens violate those laws, the sovereign state is perfectly, justifiably and morally authorized to enforce those laws.
> 
> Somewhere along the line, these obvious and perfectly accurate statements of fact have been forgotten by our government and even many of our fellow citizens.
> 
> The real question is "why?"  Why should those who don't even bother themselves with complying with our basic immigration laws be tolerated?  I mean, really, what the fuck?  By what claim of right can an illegal fucking alien be heard to complain about getting fucking caught and sent right back wherever the fuck he came from?  How does enforcing our own perfectly valid, legitimate and entirely moral laws make us the bad guys?
> 
> Your thinking is truly all fucked up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was your comment about taking away all their belongings...you really should think before you post, it will avoid these slips you keep making about your real agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More Ravi bullshit.  Out of that entire post of mine, you objected to an asset forfeiture line and your entire "Nazi" hyperbole was meant to refer to that one reference?
> 
> Stop lying.  You sound retarded.
> 
> And, oh, by the way, asset forfeiture is often a useful tool in law enforcement. Take the profit motive out of their illegal entry and illegal presence here and maybe  they won't be so inclined to illegally enter our country in the first damn place.  If you don't like that, too bad.  You're wrong.  Because, whether  you like it or not, we actually *are* entitled to enforce our own laws.
> 
> And that, you liar, _*is*_ my real agenda.  Makes me wonder what your real agenda might be.
Click to expand...

I wasn't lying...what are you, a fucking retard?

There is no law saying illegals cannot own things, fuckface. So therefore you cannot strip them of their assets. You can deport them or jail them but you cannot take their property.


----------



## WillowTree

Luissa said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> December. Lame Duck, Total amnesty. Remember who told you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> January, repeal... everything from obamacare to a possible amnesty... or let's have a damn Civil War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why? because we elected a black man to be President? I would believe you guys more when you say it his policies if you had not started bitching the day he was elected and continue to buy into the birther crap. Please continue to make yourself look like a complete moron.
Click to expand...


We don't give a shit if you believe us or not Luissa. You assholes threw eggs on President Bush's car and rioted in the streets the day he was elected so cry us a fucking river whydonchya? Can't take it? don't dish it.


----------



## 007

Angelhair said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps Congress will get off their behinds and come up with a comprehensive immigration bill.  If the GOP gains the house next year, they should come up with something....but probably not.
> 
> This law was doomed from the start.  *The Supreme Courts has consistently said immigration  issues are under federal jurisdiction. *.....
> 
> 
> 
> So are drug laws...Yet, that hasn't stopped states from enforcing them and the feds have zero problem with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Can someone please tell me how a comprehensive immigration bill will stop people from jumping the fence, swimming across????  The SECOND after this country reports a reform, you will see not thousands but MILLIONS jumping the fence!  Just wait and see- you read it here._
Click to expand...


More than likely, since that's exactly what happened last time. But that's what the libs want. They see voters, not illegal aliens.


----------



## 007

Ravi said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> They still haven't grasped the concept of "illegal immigrant" vs. guest workers and naturalized citizens.  I believe a third grader knows the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was your comment about taking away all their belongings...you really should think before you post, it will avoid these slips you keep making about your real agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More Ravi bullshit.  Out of that entire post of mine, you objected to an asset forfeiture line and your entire "Nazi" hyperbole was meant to refer to that one reference?
> 
> Stop lying.  You sound retarded.
> 
> And, oh, by the way, asset forfeiture is often a useful tool in law enforcement. Take the profit motive out of their illegal entry and illegal presence here and maybe  they won't be so inclined to illegally enter our country in the first damn place.  If you don't like that, too bad.  You're wrong.  Because, whether  you like it or not, we actually *are* entitled to enforce our own laws.
> 
> And that, you liar, _*is*_ my real agenda.  Makes me wonder what your real agenda might be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wasn't lying...what are you, a fucking retard?
> 
> There is no law saying illegals cannot own things, fuckface. So therefore you cannot strip them of their assets. You can deport them or jail them but you cannot take their property.
Click to expand...


Why not? If the FBI raids some drug house, they take all their property.


----------



## Liability

Ravi said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> They still haven't grasped the concept of "illegal immigrant" vs. guest workers and naturalized citizens.  I believe a third grader knows the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was your comment about taking away all their belongings...you really should think before you post, it will avoid these slips you keep making about your real agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More Ravi bullshit.  Out of that entire post of mine, you objected to an asset forfeiture line and your entire "Nazi" hyperbole was meant to refer to that one reference?
> 
> Stop lying.  You sound retarded.
> 
> And, oh, by the way, asset forfeiture is often a useful tool in law enforcement. Take the profit motive out of their illegal entry and illegal presence here and maybe  they won't be so inclined to illegally enter our country in the first damn place.  If you don't like that, too bad.  You're wrong.  Because, whether  you like it or not, we actually *are* entitled to enforce our own laws.
> 
> And that, you liar, _*is*_ my real agenda.  Makes me wonder what your real agenda might be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wasn't lying...what are you, a fucking retard?
> 
> There is no law saying illegals cannot own things, fuckface. So therefore you cannot strip them of their assets. You can deport them or jail them but you cannot take their property.
Click to expand...


Bitch,

You are a liar.  In your desire to be a liar, you played the "nazi" card with not even a hint of a valid basis.  You hack.

And there's no law saying a drunk driver cannot have purchased a car, either.  But guess what, stupid?  Vehicle forfeiture laws exist that permit law enforcement to seize the cars driven by drunk drivers.

Similarly, an illegal alien may have earned some money by being here illegally, but the law CAN arrange to take the profit motive out of his illegal presence by seizing such assets.  All it takes is that our legislators pass such a law and that it get enforced thereafter.

You, sadly, remain the retard, Ravi.

Your inability to track simple straightforward concepts is a real disadvantage for you.  But it is funny to see you flailing around like you do.


----------



## Ravi

Liability said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> More Ravi bullshit.  Out of that entire post of mine, you objected to an asset forfeiture line and your entire "Nazi" hyperbole was meant to refer to that one reference?
> 
> Stop lying.  You sound retarded.
> 
> And, oh, by the way, asset forfeiture is often a useful tool in law enforcement. Take the profit motive out of their illegal entry and illegal presence here and maybe  they won't be so inclined to illegally enter our country in the first damn place.  If you don't like that, too bad.  You're wrong.  Because, whether  you like it or not, we actually *are* entitled to enforce our own laws.
> 
> And that, you liar, _*is*_ my real agenda.  Makes me wonder what your real agenda might be.
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't lying...what are you, a fucking retard?
> 
> There is no law saying illegals cannot own things, fuckface. So therefore you cannot strip them of their assets. You can deport them or jail them but you cannot take their property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bitch,
> 
> You are a liar.  In your desire to be a liar, you played the "nazi" card with not even a hint of a valid basis.  You hack.
> 
> And there's no law saying a drunk driver cannot have purchased a car, either.  But guess what, stupid?  Vehicle forfeiture laws exist that permit law enforcement to seize the cars driven by drunk drivers.
> 
> Similarly, an illegal alien may have earned some money by being here illegally, but the law CAN arrange to take the profit motive out of his illegal presence by seizing such assets.  All it takes is that our legislators pass such a law and that it get enforced thereafter.
> 
> You, sadly, remain the retard, Ravi.
> 
> Your inability to track simple straightforward concepts is a real disadvantage for you.  But it is funny to see you flailing around like you do.
Click to expand...

You want to confiscate their personal possession. You're a nazi. Deal.


----------



## Yurt

its interesting just how many people say ravi lies....


----------



## Yurt

Ravi said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't lying...what are you, a fucking retard?
> 
> There is no law saying illegals cannot own things, fuckface. So therefore you cannot strip them of their assets. You can deport them or jail them but you cannot take their property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bitch,
> 
> You are a liar.  In your desire to be a liar, you played the "nazi" card with not even a hint of a valid basis.  You hack.
> 
> And there's no law saying a drunk driver cannot have purchased a car, either.  But guess what, stupid?  Vehicle forfeiture laws exist that permit law enforcement to seize the cars driven by drunk drivers.
> 
> Similarly, an illegal alien may have earned some money by being here illegally, but the law CAN arrange to take the profit motive out of his illegal presence by seizing such assets.  All it takes is that our legislators pass such a law and that it get enforced thereafter.
> 
> You, sadly, remain the retard, Ravi.
> 
> Your inability to track simple straightforward concepts is a real disadvantage for you.  But it is funny to see you flailing around like you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want to confiscate their personal possession. You're a nazi. Deal.
Click to expand...


then you of course oppose the government seizing property when used for drugs....


----------



## Oddball

...or refusal to pay confiscatory taxes...


----------



## Ravi

Yurt said:


> its interesting just how many people say ravi lies....


Yep...I was thinking that myself. Probably an agreement between like minded loons.

And not one of you has pointed out a  lie.


----------



## Defiant1

Wry Catcher said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tthe "attrition through enforcement" experiment seems to be putting the economy of Arizona in the tank. Small businesses are failing, apartment complexes are emptying and the once red-hot housing market is now stone cold and filled by REO's and short sales.
> 
> Such is the consequence of emotion based populist politics, where personal ambition leads and critically thinking is absent; where governors and legislators act in their own self-interest and where ideology rules and pragmatic solutions die.
> 
> 
> 
> Ya' mean like the emotion based populist politics of sanctuary cities, where personal ambition leads and critically thinking is absent; where mayors and city councils act in their own self-interest and where ideology rules and pragmatic solutions die?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.  Laws should make sense and be enforced.  Emotion, bias, prejudice ought not influence legislators, locally or nationally.  Sadly it does.
> *BTW, many 'sanctuaries' are churches* - do you have an opinion on that activity?
> [btw, what happended to the Dodgers?  Hopefully they can cool SD and by next WE the Giants wil be where they belong, on top in the West].
Click to expand...


Render unto Caesar.....


----------



## Yurt

Ravi said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> its interesting just how many people say ravi lies....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep...I was thinking that myself. Probably an agreement between like minded loons.
> 
> And not one of you has pointed out a  lie.
Click to expand...


yeah thats it....because all those peopel must be wrong, nope, not you, not ever....

i've pointed out your lies and then you run away

the above post is a lie, for others have also pointed out your lies


----------



## Ravi

Saying liar over and over again proves nothing beyond showing yourself to be hysterical.


----------



## LilOlLady

Temporary injunction can be lifted. Ariz won.


----------



## LilOlLady

Ravi said:


> Saying liar over and over again proves nothing beyond showing yourself to be hysterical.



We won and I am not the one screaming in the hot sun at the capitol in Phoenix. Me hysterical?
Me happy, me very happy. You? Not so happy.


----------



## Liability

Ravi said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> its interesting just how many people say ravi lies....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep...I was thinking that myself. Probably an agreement between like minded loons.
> 
> And not one of you has pointed out a  lie.
Click to expand...


Yes I did, ravioli.  And you know it.  So there's another lie of yours.

Stop lying.

We all can already see that you are rather dimwitted and unable to engage in honest debate.  But your frequent resort to dishonesty is pretty embarrassing for you and you don't seem to even grasp as much.

tsk.


----------



## Ravi

Liability said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> its interesting just how many people say ravi lies....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep...I was thinking that myself. Probably an agreement between like minded loons.
> 
> And not one of you has pointed out a  lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I did, ravioli.  And you know it.  So there's another lie of yours.
> 
> Stop lying.
> 
> We all can already see that you are rather dimwitted and unable to engage in honest debate.  But your frequent resort to dishonesty is pretty embarrassing for you and you don't seem to even grasp as much.
> 
> tsk.
Click to expand...

You didn't point out a lie. You claimed I lied about something...something to do with what part of one of your long winded posts I read. You're an idiot.


----------



## Liability

Ravi said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep...I was thinking that myself. Probably an agreement between like minded loons.
> 
> And not one of you has pointed out a  lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I did, ravioli.  And you know it.  So there's another lie of yours.
> 
> Stop lying.
> 
> We all can already see that you are rather dimwitted and unable to engage in honest debate.  But your frequent resort to dishonesty is pretty embarrassing for you and you don't seem to even grasp as much.
> 
> tsk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't point out a lie. You claimed I lied about something...something to do with what part of one of your long winded posts I read. You're an idiot.
Click to expand...


Wrong, stupid.  It is you who is and remains the idiot.

You did lie and you know it. 

Your denial is another lie, you stupid bitch.

Give honesty a chance, schmuck.

My post, by the way, wasn't all that long-winded.  You're just a dullard.

And when you, like the fucking simpleton bitch you are, resort to making baseless and totally dishonest Nazi accusations,  you couldn't be more totally and deliberately dishonest.  You stupid lying bitch.  Smarten up.


----------



## Ravi

Liability said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I did, ravioli.  And you know it.  So there's another lie of yours.
> 
> Stop lying.
> 
> We all can already see that you are rather dimwitted and unable to engage in honest debate.  But your frequent resort to dishonesty is pretty embarrassing for you and you don't seem to even grasp as much.
> 
> tsk.
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't point out a lie. You claimed I lied about something...something to do with what part of one of your long winded posts I read. You're an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, stupid.  It is you who is and remains the idiot.
> 
> You did lie and you know it.
> 
> Your denial is another lie, you stupid bitch.
> 
> Give honesty a chance, schmuck.
> 
> My post, by the way, wasn't all that long-winded.  You're just a dullard.
> 
> And when you, like the fucking simpleton bitch you are, resort to making baseless and totally dishonest Nazi accusations,  you couldn't be more totally and deliberately dishonest.  You stupid lying bitch.  Smarten up.
Click to expand...

Nazi. It must really suck for you being exposed for what you are on an anonymous message board.

Tissue?


----------



## Liability

Ravi said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't point out a lie. You claimed I lied about something...something to do with what part of one of your long winded posts I read. You're an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, stupid.  It is you who is and remains the idiot.
> 
> You did lie and you know it.
> 
> Your denial is another lie, you stupid bitch.
> 
> Give honesty a chance, schmuck.
> 
> My post, by the way, wasn't all that long-winded.  You're just a dullard.
> 
> And when you, like the fucking simpleton bitch you are, resort to making baseless and totally dishonest Nazi accusations,  you couldn't be more totally and deliberately dishonest.  You stupid lying bitch.  Smarten up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nazi. It must really suck for you being exposed for what you are on an anonymous message board.
> 
> Tissue?
Click to expand...


More deliberate lies from Ravi the stupid diseased twat.

No thanks, bitch.  Use the tissue to clean the drool off your chin, moron.

You compulsive lying liberoidal types really can't help your fundamental dishonesty.


----------



## Yurt

Ravi said:


> Saying liar over and over again proves nothing beyond showing yourself to be hysterical.



nah, the only hysteria is you not being able to substantiate your false claim i brought up stealing....

you ran away crying like a little child whose ice cream just fell on the ground

you could easily show you're not a liar....but you can't


----------



## Againsheila

"liar liar pants on fire hanging on a telephone wire," <aimed at no particular person>

Now can we get back to the debate?


----------



## Liability

Againsheila said:


> "liar liar pants on fire hanging on a telephone wire," <aimed at no particular person>
> 
> Now can we get back to the debate?



As soon as the liars stop lying.  Lying interferes with any hope of a valid debate.

Someone tell Ravi.


----------



## EriktheRed

azcentral.com blogs - Hate mail, threats flood Arizona judge's office


----------



## Foxfyre

From today's e-mail gleanings, I received the following.  It is too recent, I guess, to be dealt with by one of the 'truth or fiction' research sites and I can't find it anywhere on the internet except in a whole bunch of blogs which suggests it is all or mostly made up.

But the truth of it is so poignant I decided to post it anyway with a disclaimer than it is much more likely to be metaphorical than an actual event:

The owner of the Phoenix Suns basketball team, Robert Sarver, opposes Arizona's new immigration laws.  Arizona's Governor, Jan Brewer, released the following statement in response to Sarver's criticism of the new law: 

"What if the owners of the Suns discovered that hordes of people were sneaking into games without paying? What if they had a good idea who the gate-crashers are, but the ushers and security personnel were not allowed to ask these folks to produce their ticket stubs, thus non-paying attendees couldn't be ejected. Furthermore, what if Suns' ownership was expected to provide those who sneaked in with complimentary food and drink, a program, an adequately sheltered seat, and education on how the game is played?  And what if, on those days when a gate-crasher became ill or injured, the Suns had to provide free medical care and hospitalization?"

Would you think that to be a reasonable state of affairs?

Sincerely
Jan Brewer, Governor"


----------



## Againsheila

Foxfyre said:


> From today's e-mail gleanings, I received the following.  It is too recent, I guess, to be dealt with by one of the 'truth or fiction' research sites and I can't find it anywhere on the internet except in a whole bunch of blogs which suggests it is all or mostly made up.
> 
> But the truth of it is so poignant I decided to post it anyway with a disclaimer than it is much more likely to be metaphorical than an actual event:
> 
> The owner of the Phoenix Suns basketball team, Robert Sarver, opposes Arizona's new immigration laws.  Arizona's Governor, Jan Brewer, released the following statement in response to Sarver's criticism of the new law:
> 
> "What if the owners of the Suns discovered that hordes of people were sneaking into games without paying? What if they had a good idea who the gate-crashers are, but the ushers and security personnel were not allowed to ask these folks to produce their ticket stubs, thus non-paying attendees couldn't be ejected. Furthermore, what if Suns' ownership was expected to provide those who sneaked in with complimentary food and drink, a program, an adequately sheltered seat, and education on how the game is played?  And what if, on those days when a gate-crasher became ill or injured, the Suns had to provide free medical care and hospitalization?"
> 
> Would you think that to be a reasonable state of affairs?
> 
> Sincerely
> Jan Brewer, Governor"



I've said almost that exact same thing, except using the movie theater analogy.


----------

