Breaking: Judge grants injunction on most vehemently opposed parts of AZ law!

[Sofiyya 1,687]

No tomatoes for you.

I'm being deported

[evli1966 88]

I see it as a win and lose situation

the other states will amend their laws to skirt and beat any challenge the feds will have and many will follow suit.

Obama will seek to give amnesty to almost 20millions illegals before the case is heard in SCOTUS becasue he and his adminstration know they lost here by not blocking the entire law.

They also know that the coming state legislation in many states will not be fended off and his house of cards will tumble.

My question to those who claim it infringes so much on their right to not have to show ID if requested.

So you are all for allowing 20 million Illegals to be pardoned or just to live as they are under your bootheels and control?

Also if amnesty is granted to the 20 million or so and those of you no longer working seeking to find new employment what will you do when you find those educated illegals (at US citizens expense) are already able to take the job you wanted but wasnt finisshed with your re education?

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Ha ha ha ha ha! And tee hee!

[Heracles 417]

This whole it's not Constitutional garbage is just a front from the reality that folks like Obama want blanket amnesty. They can spin all the bullcrap about increased crackdowns they like, yet in reality it's all about amnesty.

As history has illustrated before, in 15 years from now, the US will end up in the same exact spot. Same idiots crying about the poverty and corporations, while refusing to grasp why the rest of the world does not have similar - not even close - immigration policies; thus their uber-high standard of living and quality of life.

Once again, the same BS excuses will be used for the next Amnesty. Wash, rinse and repeat. All while the US of A has been transformed into a Latin American equivalent second world country; with few rich, be full of crime and the rest dirt poor.

Edited July 29, 2010 by Heracles

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Arizona police haven't been barred from checking immigration status; they just aren't required to do it. Police unions and organizations are very pro-border security and anti-illegal, so they are in favor of immigration enforcement measures. The judge actually bolstered the effort by striking down practices that create sanctuary cities by disallowing the practice of forbidding police from investigating immigration status. The injunction on requiring immigrants to carry status papers will be stuck down easily since it contradicts federal law.

Either way, this is bad for Democrats. This law is popular across the board, and it will come back to bite them in the butt. Even Chris Matthews admits that, and the WH is not celebrating.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Did you read that before you posted it?

I certainly did.

Many an immigrant is now a citizen. Are you trying to tell us there is a law saying they should carry their "papers", Herr Commandant?

the law specifically states that they must be in posession of the docs at all times.

........and here's another with reading comprehension problems.

[Moonandstar 6]

Many an immigrant is now a citizen. Are you trying to tell us there is a law saying they should carry their "papers", Herr Commandant?

Wow, way to fail at covering your a$$ when you KNOW you didn't actually read that before you posted it.

[HAL 9000 96]

Maybe a quiz is in order since we're neenering back and forth now. That would solve the silly 'you clearly didn't read it'/ 'I certainly did' debate. Just a suggestion.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Wow, way to fail at covering your a$$ when you KNOW you didn't actually read that before you posted it.

He didn't read it, that's obvious.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Wow, way to fail at covering your a$$ when you KNOW you didn't actually read that before you posted it.

Idiot.

He didn't read it, that's obvious.

Just. B*tchy. That's. All.

[The_Dude 1,142]

well, since nobody here is smart enuf to be able to read the actual decision and make sense of it for the purpose of argument but me, i'm leaving this thread and going back to my donkey soup.

And with that, the collective IQ of this discussion has increased exponentially.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Arizona police haven't been barred from checking immigration status; they just aren't required to do it. Police unions and organizations are very pro-border security and anti-illegal, so they are in favor of immigration enforcement measures. The judge actually bolstered the effort by striking down practices that create sanctuary cities by disallowing the practice of forbidding police from investigating immigration status. The injunction on requiring immigrants to carry status papers will be stuck down easily since it contradicts federal law.

Either way, this is bad for Democrats. This law is popular across the board, and it will come back to bite them in the butt. Even Chris Matthews admits that, and the WH is not celebrating.

I'd be careful with the bolded statement. Yes, they are anti-illegal immigration, but don't necissarily support the arizona bill, nor do they support being required to check someone's status. Not all police unions support it, it's fairly split among the unions in the areas that are actually effected by illegal immigrants. In many cases, being required to check someones status will lead to a hindrance of many investigations for fear of being deported.

[dluke77 9]

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;" http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

From Article 1 Section 8 of the US Consitution. Now there has been debate before and decision made that Naturilization extends to an inherent right of the federal government to set rules for immigration rather than the states. So in order to protect "the people" which means citizens in the Preamble of the Constitution from search without warrant or probably cause--each state should make other laws, especially the ones that are easily rights guaranteed to the people and states to make laws governing different entities.... Like schools, medical care, employment, and whatever else they can think up.

Medical care and schooling denied for all persons here in the US illegally--California is essential bankrupt in part because of illegals in the schools--illegals don't pay taxes yet their kids go to free schooling. Each state could enact laws which require training for farm workers, day workers, and other occupations that would require legal status in the US or you don't work in that state. States cannot enforce immigration more than they already do in assisting the federal government in upholding the law but they can make it completely uncomfortable for illegals.

Yep your right I don't want to work in the fields picking apples and such -- and I don't expect Obama to cut unemployment benefits to those not even actively looking for a job and making them go work in the low wage jobs (let them do it and give them a government stipend to make up the difference in lost wages until they get work again). So simply do what Bush wanted to do and give day workers and other illegal working hands willing to work for less than minimum wage permits to do so. They pay for the permit either upon issuance or through pay deductions. If they don't pay a monthly fee their permit is revoked.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I'd be careful with the bolded statement. Yes, they are anti-illegal immigration, but don't necissarily support the arizona bill, nor do they support being required to check someone's status. Not all police unions support it, it's fairly split among the unions in the areas that are actually effected by illegal immigrants. In many cases, being required to check someones status will lead to a hindrance of many investigations for fear of being deported.

I'm speaking of LE orgs in AZ, not all over the US.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

let's keep the name calling and personal insults out of the discussion, thanks.