| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Federal judge guts Arizona immigration law |
| 2010-07-29 |
| A federal judge this morning The overall law will still take effect Thursday, but without the provisions that angered opponents. Sections barred from being enforced include: "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. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #30 The problem isn't too much illegal immigration rather that we have too little legal immigration. For example, H1b visas are capped at ~64,000 people. These are people, who have jobs and sponsors. Yet, through failure, we allow in millions of illegals with no prospects other than their wits. This is sick. There are millions of hard working, educated people who would gladly join the American Project, if only we would let them. Part of the reason we are outsourcing our jobs to foreigners is that we will not let skilled workers move to America and be in-sourced. Controlling our borders is necessary, but let us remember to keep a gate open. Let us expand ourselves by extend invitations to those who make us wiser, richer and stronger and are willing to come to our shores. |
| Posted by: rammer 2010-07-29 21:14 |
| #29 Excellent thread. I don't have much to add except to point out that our immigration quota system is designed to allow time for assimilation. In the past, we've had to many Chinese at one time (result: Chinatowns), too many Irish (result: political machines), too many Italians (result: mafia), etc. The glory of our melting pot is to let the various cultures in, in a controlled way, and celebrate the "hybrid vigor" that results from their assimilation. The US naturalization process has historically pushed towards assimilation, not encouragement of segregation. |
| Posted by: KBK 2010-07-29 19:39 |
| #28 I'd say they are trying to turn this country into a socialist aristocracy. 1. They say the Constitution no longer applies to this day and age(Pure BS). 2. They have tried and continue to build social engineering schemes 3. They claim America is too stupid, dumb, or cowardly to be allowed to rule itself. 4. Only a select few, those that are liberal and generally rich are allowed to rule (besides beinag able to afford office). 5. Those not of part of the, "in," are marginalized and often attacked and reduced to the stupid, cowardly, racists category. 6. Only a few can rule (those with the right narcicism and personality cult, such as dictatorships use). 7. The government must control all aspects of your life, since the liberals feel it knows best. Liberty is a false idea and bad for them any way. |
| Posted by: miscellaneous 2010-07-29 18:58 |
| #27 The current anger is over a judge who simply said the law needs to be reviewed. Hers was not a final decision but a temporary injunction. It's politically motivated. We all know what the ruling should have been. It seems clear that the Supreme Court will ultimately decide this question. After the clowns that make up the Ninth Circuit Court get a shot at it. It'll be years before the Supreme Court gets their hands on it. All this is a stalling action against the people's will. Barry wants them here until he gets his way with amnesty and voting rights for illegals. The angry response has been irrational because it's only a temporary injunction. Any anger is quite understandable if you take this in context. People don't go nuts en-masse all at once. Especially in this de-balled society. There are multiple good reasons. If this was an isolated incident that wasn't related to an overall scheme, I could agree with you. But I'm going with the conspiracy theory on this one. If Barry gets his way in the lame duck period, he'll have won and it will only be a matter of time. Have you considered this effect in combination with the idea of doing away with the electoral system? That's what it's all about AFAIAC. I'm sure more will be revealed as we move forward. We will have an opportunity to throw the bums out next Nov. That is where our anger should be directed. Yep. That too. Never forget. The ba$tards are turning this once great country into just another effing country. All hail the new world order! |
| Posted by: gorb 2010-07-29 18:41 |
| #26 OK. So democracy doesn't work very well yup, that is why we need to return to strengthening the republic and get rid of this rule of the masses BS |
| Posted by: abu do you love 2010-07-29 17:27 |
| #25 Won't mean a thing when the lame-duck Congress gets down to work.... OK. So democracy doesn't work very well. I've heard it is the worst form of government except for all the others. I'm still going to vote. Harry Mitchell supported the healthcare thing and I will vote against him. That's all I can do. |
| Posted by: hupailing ebbuns 2010-07-29 16:15 |
| #24 We will have an opportunity to throw the bums out next Nov. That is where our anger should be directed. Won't mean a thing when the lame-duck Congress gets down to work. Even Reagan passed an amnesty bill in 1986. That one failed, and the one that will be passed in 2011 (when the illiterate imported underclass equals about 10% of southwest states' population) will fail, to be succeeded by another amnesty in 2036, when the illiterate imported underclass constitutes close to 20% of the southwest states' population. Rinse and repeat. |
| Posted by: lex 2010-07-29 16:02 |
| #23 What else can people do given the current crop of legislators who forget why they are there in the first place? The current anger is over a judge who simply said the law needs to be reviewed. Hers was not a final decision but a temporary injunction. It seems clear that the Supreme Court will ultimately decide this question. The angry response has been irrational because it's only a temporary injunction. We will have an opportunity to throw the bums out next Nov. That is where our anger should be directed. |
| Posted by: hupailing ebbuns 2010-07-29 15:46 |
| #22 How does he feel about the illegals who not only skipped to the head of the line, but skipped the line altogether?... We have discussed this and he says that they have lots of problems for not following the law. He would not choose that path. BTW my son in law is a college educated professional who speaks English very well, although he is not quite fluent yet. |
| Posted by: hupailing ebbuns 2010-07-29 15:39 |
| #21 So there is more than just a little madness going around. The law works two ways. People have to follow the law, but they have to agree with the laws in the first place. Laws have been made without the consent of the governed. Yelling "Go back to Mexico" is a sign of that. What else can people do given the current crop of legislators who forget why they are there in the first place? They have seized the wheel and are hoping that we agree with where they drive us to after we get there. If our legislators would behave and put in laws that we agree with, then there wouldn't be a need to yell "Go Home". It's a warning. If it gets bad enough, people won't stop at words. I hope our legislators are paying attention, and that they will suddenly start behaving. But you know they won't. They're irretrievably broken and/or contaminated for the most part. Every one of them except for mine, right? Throw the bums out. |
| Posted by: gorb 2010-07-29 15:12 |
| #20 He is a legal immigrant and has been here for about 4 months. this morning as he was checking his mailbox someone drove by and shouted "Go back to Mexico". I'm sorry your son-in-law had to endure a drive-by insult, hupailing ebbuns. And it was only a few months ago that a beaming Helen Thomas told a young Jewish-American lad that Jewish-Israelis should go back to Poland and Germany, where they came from. There are idiots everywhere. The fact is, uncertainty brings them out of the woodwork. I'm sure your new son-in-law had to jump through a great many hoops to acquire legal status, hupailing ebbuns. How does he feel about the illegals who not only skipped to the head of the line, but skipped the line altogether? |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2010-07-29 15:11 |
| #19 The potential harvest of hispanic votes by means of the "Emerging Democratic Majority" strategy is simply too tantalizing for Barry and Co. to pass up. Posted by lex This has LOOOOOOOONG been the strategy. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2010-07-29 15:06 |
| #18 We have a couple more years of our socialist president, then we can go back and fix it. A fond hope, but not likely. Much likelier is the lame-duck Congress ramming through amnesty after Nov. 4. The potential harvest of hispanic votes by means of the "Emerging Democratic Majority" strategy is simply too tantalizing for Barry and Co. to pass up. |
| Posted by: lex 2010-07-29 14:40 |
| #17 I remind you that Arizona was settled by Mexico and only later absorbed into the US. It was occupied by Spain and was part of the governance known as Alta California. Ask the Acoma tribe in NM how they view the Spanish acquisition of native lands in the southwest. After Mexico gained independence, it and the other northern domain of New Mexico had about 10,000 each out of the overall non-indian Mexican population of 7 million before the annexation. As far as far as political elites dictating to the people goes I remind you that we elected them. When there's a real choice. When the system is rigged and you are given a choice between amnesty now or amnesty a little later on because both parties are pandering to the same group, it's a joke. As for the Constitution, I think we can agree what the text reads. However, we don't get to do that. The ruling class tells us what it reads regardless of the words written in black and white. It's what ever they say it says. Power justifies it. The problem for the left is that people are signaling they're not backing down. Instead of reading the social warnings, the left is plowing ahead and doubling down. Unfortunately, we may well face the choice of surrendering so people won't get hurt or fighting. Enjoy the serfdom. Yes, the remarks were inappropriate for your son in law. Similar remarks uttered against those who are supporting American sovereignty and national identity are also unacceptable, particularly by illegals and their supporters upon American soil. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2010-07-29 14:11 |
| #16 At Foxnews the comments on this situation were off the wall with many people talking of violence guns and taking things into their own hands. There was even talk about the overthrow of the government. The anger is a natural and understandable reaction to the blindingly obvious: our nation's political class has no desire to address the problem with anything like honesty or good faith. To them, the issue has only a political frame, and nothing more-- no labor market or fiscal or other economic dimension, no connection to school performance or law enforcement or cultural cohesion or social service provision. But the political class has all the trumps. It doesn't really matter if we're right, if this importation of a 12-million (and soon to double, when amnesty reform gets passed after Nov. 4) underclass is utterly insane and will result in the transformation of America from a middle-class democracy into a Mexican-style basket case oligarchy. Doesn't matter at all, because on this issue, Tweedledum and Tweedledee care only about the votes of the fastest-growing, soon-to-be-majority in many states voting bloc. Bottom line: if this movement against amnesty for the imported underclass doesn't find a way to recruit legal immigrant hispanic-Americans as its primary spokesmen, then we will lose politically. |
| Posted by: lex 2010-07-29 14:04 |
| #15 The gun retoric will go away, as will the crap the guys in the car did. Remember that if your husband was pulled over for a traffic violation after this law was to be in place, he would not have been bothered. What the left is doing is baiting the right and dividing this country. They, through political stunts like this, will draw out the radical and stupid from both sides. The law, however chopped still has teeth. If someone is arrested they can still check his citizenship while they hold them for the crime. This is what would have happened anyway. The law, even with the changes, will give the state teeth to deal with the crime. The retoric on both sides needs to settle down a bit and we need to get back to being a nation of laws. We have a couple more years of our socialist president, then we can go back and fix it. Until then we have to be vigilant in our oposition and understand our enemy, work harder to defeat him and his policies, and never resort to violence. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2010-07-29 14:00 |
| #14 Look. I am not arguing that illegals are ok or should be allowed to come here. I am only stating the obvious fact that this fight is empowering ignorant people who are simply against all Mexicans who are here either legally or not. How did the person who verbally assaulted my son in law know that he was not a US citizen? I remind you that Arizona was settled by Mexico and only later absorbed into the US. We won't go into the details there because that is history. But the fact is that the families with the oldest roots in this state, save for Native Americans, are Hispanic families. There is no need or justification to tell them to go back to Mexico. And no justification for abusing people on the basis of their ethnicity, as was done to my son in law just yesterday in the highly charged atmosphere that this "debate" has engendered. That being said I do agree that there has been a cold war between libtards and conservatives for a long time. It is good that the war is a cold war and I don't want to see it erupt into vigilante actions and or open warfare. I do not like ALL the laws in this country. But the answer is in our hands and we can make the changes we want by electing people who will do that for us. As far as far as political elites dictating to the people goes I remind you that we elected them. It's our fault. I don't think we need a revolution because the Constitution is a great framework to use in constructing our society. I support the Constitution and also the US govt. even though they are flawed in many ways. The declaration of Independence is not the Law of the Land and is not an invitation to declare our elected leaders, however stupid or corrupt, as tyrants and call for violent overthrow of the govt. We don't have to my friends. We can vote them out. |
| Posted by: hupailing ebbuns 2010-07-29 12:58 |
| #13 The fix was in on this one. The Supremes will not look at this for years. |
| Posted by: regular joe 2010-07-29 12:46 |
| #12 ...dividing the nation into hostile camps. Dividing? The Nation has been divided into hostile camps for sometime now. I've watched the Cold War between the ideologies of Leftism and Conservatism for nearly 37 years. That Cold War is going to become Hot, and it won't be much longer. |
| Posted by: George Ebbinter8592 2010-07-29 11:23 |
| #11 Karl, I suppose Roberts and Scalia are licking their chops over this one...a chance to do a slap down on a Clinton appointee. I bet they have their interns working on this right now. Jimmy, I suppose so. This is a bad decisions even for a Clinton appointee. |
| Posted by: James Carville/Karl Rove 2010-07-29 10:52 |
| #10 This is just legislating from the bench. I hear Rhode Island has the same law - as does Arkansas (someone mentioned that here). The problem AZ has is that they border Mexico and need it. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2010-07-29 10:45 |
| #9 Was there ever any doubt? |
| Posted by: Steviski 2010-07-29 10:26 |
| #8 Fast track it to SCOTUS. In arguments apply the logic to the War on Drugs. This is not going to stand. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2010-07-29 10:12 |
| #7 The ruling caste is making clear they will dictate without the consent of the governed. Yep. At Foxnews the comments on this situation were off the wall with many people talking of violence guns and taking things into their own hands. There was even talk about the overthrow of the government. There's this little document that addresses this type of situation. It's a little old, and starts with the words "when in the course of human events..." but it does a great job of explaining why people are saying these things. And, bluntly: this "judge" has declared that the law only applies to people she does not favor. I'm now required to present a passport to drive from, say, Detroit to Windsor, yet millions of people are allowed to wonder about the US committing countless crimes and burdening already ridiculously obese social services. |
| Posted by: Rob Crawford 2010-07-29 09:54 |
| #6 Once again - Muehler, Darin v. Mena, Iris (03/22/2005). summary, last paragraph - The Court also concluded that the questioning of Mena about her immigration status also did not violate her 4th Amendment rights. This is not about law. The law has been set. It's about power. The ruling caste is making clear they will dictate without the consent of the governed. You'll have it their way, period. And yes, they're inviting the country into another period of Bleeding Kansas. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2010-07-29 09:19 |
| #5 JEEESSHH. This federal judge has made a Chinese menu out of the Arizona law--pick and choose one from column 1, 2 from column 3, etc. except Arizona does not have much of a choice at this point. This will go to the 9th Circus and after that SCOTUS. That will be 2-3 years down the road. We have a Democratic governor who could be described as a reasonable conservative governor--one who tries to do what is best for Tennessee. He opposed health care on the grounds that it would burden the people of Tennessee. He reformed TennCare which was fiscally breaking the back of Tennesseans. He is NOT one of Obama's favorite democrats. Probably, because Bredesen is not a foaming at the mouth leftist radical of the Alinsky ilk. "Recently the Governor of Tennessee filed an Amicus brief in support of the Arizona law so as we can see the law in Arizona has implications across the country and locally here." Our govenor candidates have expressed opinions about immigration also. Haslam and Wamp have said the following: "Is illegal immigration a problem in East Tennessee? You better believe it is, " said a campaign ad from Bill Haslam. "But illegal immigration hurts our schools, hospitals and public safety," said an ad from Zach Wamp And politicians in Tennessee aren't the only ones that are pushing immigration reform. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2010-07-29 09:07 |
| #4 A big Win for Zero. Now Arizona not only cannot enforce it's new law, it pretty much transforms Arizona into a Sanctuary state - asking ANY immigration-related questions, could put an officer in contempt of court. And there won't be any relief from the Ninth Circuit. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2010-07-29 07:53 |
| #3 More clintonian legacy. Prior to the arrival of decivilization, we were a nation of laws. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2010-07-29 06:11 |
| #2 My daughter married a Mexican national and they came here to Phoenix. He is a legal immigrant and has been here for about 4 months. this morning as he was checking his mailbox someone drove by and shouted "Go back to Mexico". At Foxnews the comments on this situation were off the wall with many people talking of violence guns and taking things into their own hands. There was even talk about the overthrow of the government. So there is more than just a little madness going around. I am disgusted with both Jan Brewer and Obama who are both playing the race card for political points and dividing the nation into hostile camps. With this kind of leadership I do fear for the future of the USA. Just saying. |
| Posted by: hupailing ebbuns 2010-07-29 03:25 |
| #1 To the judge from an Arizonan: "mene mene tekel upharshin! And to think they were deterred by "riots" in the streets! In Tucson we were promised 24 hours of "resistance" (shades of Hizbullah!) Check these sites: "www.tucsonmay1st.org", "boycottarizona1070.org",/nomoredeaths.org/werejectracism", "altoarizona.com". In the future demographics will rule: its now or never to stop the madness. |
| Posted by: borgboy 2010-07-29 01:30 |