So AZ, what's going on over there? (AZ Immigration Bill)

[stebo0728]

So you posit that I need to prove a negative? Show me evidence that anyone in the DoJ even remotely plans to address the issue in San Fran.

[heliochrome85]

So you posit that I need to prove a negative? Show me evidence that anyone in the DoJ even remotely plans to address the issue in San Fran.

there is simply no point in continuing to debate this issue with you since you are unable to understand the importance of evidence. if you want to resort to FoxNews sensationalism, go ahead, but im not wasting my time trying to extract evidence from you when you clearly have none.

show me proof that the DOJ is doing as you claim, then ill take you seriously.

[wingFeather]

FoxNews sensationalism

That scapegoat is getting worn out. What else ya got?

[heliochrome85]

FoxNews sensationalism

That scapegoat is getting worn out. What else ya got?

cute.

[audtatious]

So again I ask, where is the evidence that they arent doing their job?

>10 million illegals is pretty good proof

<edit: realize I'm not dumping this on Obama. All Administrations since the '86 amnesty have been a failure in this aspect>

[AZhitman]

FoxNews sensationalism

That scapegoat is getting worn out. What else ya got?

Rare that I agree with WF, but he's got ya there. Give that line a rest - it's pathetic and lazy.

In fact, the only "sensationalism" going on right now is by uninformed namby-pamby do-gooders who THINK they know WTF they're talking about.

Here's the deal - NOTHING about the bill remains that ANYONE can take issue with, that's not already in existing law, or completely logical and prudent. There's nothing in it that can be termed "racism", yet our downtown was CLOGGED today by smelly, worthless, uneducated imbeciles who have NO IDEA what they're protesting.

Sharpton got his ignorant, race-baiting arse handed to him tonight on AC360 by the author of the law when he simply COULDN'T describe what his problem with the revised / castrated version of the law was.

So, what's the problem now? C'mon, WHAT is the problem?

[AZhitman]

i honestly dont know what mre the federal government can do to placate those who keep stating that the Feds arent interested in our national security and securing the borders. According to the washington post, Obama's administration has stepped up deportations of illegal immigrants.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01790.html

Nice propaganda, but the stats trip it up. Deportations are up because illegal entry is up. And when you control for illegal entries, his Administration has deported FEWER than Bush.

If I were lazy, I'd say the WA Post is a poor source, but I won't.

short of shooting them on the spot, which im sure some of those loudest voices in AZ wouldnt be opposed to

Nice jab. Way to lump everyone who supports enforcement into your skewed perception. We're all hateful, inhuman racists in your mind. I resent your implication.

the Feds are doing all they can.

Now you're either making stuff up (which is beneath your intellect) or you're chuggin' the koolaid. If "doing all they can" means ORDERING our ICE to ignore calls from AZ to process detainees, and sending us a handful of desk-jockeys, yeah, they're doing all they can.

What's REALLY happening is they're holding true border security hostage until immigration reform is passed. And that brings with it a SLEW of new problems and expenses.

Obama would deploy more personelle and troops to the border, but unfortunately, we are in two wars of attrition at the moment. oh, and the country is broke.

You'd never know it by the way Pelosi and Co. are pissing money away. How about those "lifetime" unemployment benefits?

As til now, i have yet to see ANY evidence of its reticence about enforcing the law.

Then you've been living under a rock. See my comment above about ICE.

PrezBO himself conceded that they've been remiss, and every expert and analyst I hear makes it VERY clear that this is in response to DECADES of ignoring the problem, and BO has given it nothing but lip service, despite his promises.

[IBCoupe]

Nice jab. Way to lump everyone who supports enforcement into your skewed perception. We're all hateful, inhuman racists in your mind. I resent your implication.

He didn't say "all." He explicitly wrote the word "some."

Nothing else you wrote was worth criticizing. Carry on.

[heliochrome85]

i honestly dont know what mre the federal government can do to placate those who keep stating that the Feds arent interested in our national security and securing the borders. According to the washington post, Obama's administration has stepped up deportations of illegal immigrants.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01790.html

Nice propaganda, but the stats trip it up. Deportations are up because illegal entry is up. And when you control for illegal entries, his Administration has deported FEWER than Bush.

If I were lazy, I'd say the WA Post is a poor source, but I won't.

short of shooting them on the spot, which im sure some of those loudest voices in AZ wouldnt be opposed to

Nice jab. Way to lump everyone who supports enforcement into your skewed perception. We're all hateful, inhuman racists in your mind. I resent your implication.

the Feds are doing all they can.

Now you're either making stuff up (which is beneath your intellect) or you're chuggin' the koolaid. If "doing all they can" means ORDERING our ICE to ignore calls from AZ to process detainees, and sending us a handful of desk-jockeys, yeah, they're doing all they can.

What's REALLY happening is they're holding true border security hostage until immigration reform is passed. And that brings with it a SLEW of new problems and expenses.

Obama would deploy more personelle and troops to the border, but unfortunately, we are in two wars of attrition at the moment. oh, and the country is broke.

You'd never know it by the way Pelosi and Co. are pissing money away. How about those "lifetime" unemployment benefits?

As til now, i have yet to see ANY evidence of its reticence about enforcing the law.

Then you've been living under a rock. See my comment above about ICE.

PrezBO himself conceded that they've been remiss, and every expert and analyst I hear makes it VERY clear that this is in response to DECADES of ignoring the problem, and BO has given it nothing but lip service, despite his promises.

1.) Since when was the Washington Post on the side of the Administration? Lets not forget where Charles Krautheimer works, and where David Weigel used to. The WaPo has leaned Right for many years now. The WaPo is a real news source that leans Right. Fox News is just a Conservative/Tea Party Propaganda machine that happens to have News in its name. Ill give up using it as a target the moment it actually does any reporting instead of being a 24/7 opinion channel designed to whip up anger and hatred in the fly over states. You never saw anyone shoot up a church becuase of a segment of Anderson Cooper...

2.) Do you have any evidence of increased immigration? Last I checked, the economy tanked so bad that there werent jobs to begin with. What are they coming here for then?

3.) I said SOME. I did not say ALL. and Yes, i do stand by it. You mean to tell me Sherriff Joe stands for peaceful handling of these people? How about the VFW that just banned the celebration of Cinco De Mayo...
http://www.azcentral.com/community/pina ... ction.html
or the candidate for office who is running on a platform of cutting off all utilities and services to illegal immigrants
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07 ... mmigrants/

do you deny that those with the loudest voices for this law have reached a point where inhumane treatment of these immigrants can be justified?

4.) Just as I asked of stebo multiple times, ill ask of you. Bring me an article or a statistic that proves what you claim. Where is it said that the DoJ is ignoring calls? I simply dont understand where any of this evidence is coming from? Just because i say its true doesnt mean it is true. You, as someone wiser and older than me, should know this.

5.) you really wanna open up the can of worms on spending? I mean really? Who bailed out Lehman brothers? Goldman Sachs? AIG? GM? Who piled on tax cuts at a time when we were spending more than we could afford? and then who was left to pick up the pieces?
If you want to criticize spending, fine. Just give us some area where you would cut spending. If it doesnt include DoD spending, then it isnt even worth mentioning since both Medicare and Social Security are tightly controlled. As someone going into a field where 21% of my income may be in the hands of a lazy senate who keeps threatening a medicare cut, I can tell you, Medicare is UNDERfunded.

6.) your comment isnt evidence of a problem. your comment reflects the prevailing opinion on the right that nothing is being done. no evidence has been presented to support this claim, not by you or other members of this forum, and not by the conservative media. im not saying the problem doesnt exist. im saying there simply isnt evidence of the claim that the federal government has given up responsibility of inforcing the borders.

[WDRacing]

6.) im not saying the problem doesnt exist. im saying there simply isnt evidence of the claim that the federal government has given up responsibility of inforcing the borders.

Wow dude...I can't believe you came right out and said that. At least we can now chock up everything you say as on par with Liberal garbage that can be utterly ignored. Thanks for straightening that out for us

[wingFeather]

6.) im not saying the problem doesnt exist. im saying there simply isnt evidence of the claim that the federal government has given up responsibility of inforcing the borders.

Wow dude...I can't believe you came right out and said that. At least we can now chock up everything you say as on par with Liberal garbage that can be utterly ignored. Thanks for straightening that out for us

+1

He has selective awareness.

[stebo0728]

6.) im not saying the problem doesnt exist. im saying there simply isnt evidence of the claim that the federal government has given up responsibility of inforcing the borders.

Wow dude...I can't believe you came right out and said that. At least we can now chock up everything you say as on par with Liberal garbage that can be utterly ignored. Thanks for straightening that out for us

THATS MINUS 50 DKP!!

[stebo0728]

Ok helio, most people will label this crazy evidence, but its about all you can muster to prove a negative.



Please notice, the search was for San Francisco, and nothing but Arizona hits resulted.

[audtatious]

Interesting read. I've bolded a few things at the beginning but it's worth the read.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ignoring the Law
A judge’s ruling against Arizona’s SB 1070 doesn’t square with federal immigration law.

The Obama administration’s hilarious commerce-clause argument against Arizona’s immigration law was too much even for U.S. District Judge Susan “Rubber Stamp” Bolton. The Justice Department had maintained that the Arizona statute’s ban on smuggling illegal aliens while committing another crime — a provision targeting drug dealers — violates the Constitution’s assignment of the regulation of interstate commerce to the federal government. The federal interest in the unimpeded transport of drug runners and scouts across state lines, one must infer from the department’s brief, trumps a state’s interest in keeping drug dealing away from its residents.

Displaying a judicial acumen otherwise lacking in her opinion, Judge Bolton noted that the United States had not “provided a satisfactory explanation for how [the anti-smuggling section], which creates parallel state statutory provisions for conduct already prohibited by federal law, has a substantial effect on interstate commerce.” Moreover, noted the judge, one must weigh the burden on “interstate commerce” against the putative local benefits from its regulation.

Such commonsense reasoning and fidelity to the law is what we expect of a federal judge. Had Judge Bolton merely maintained such virtues throughout the rest of her opinion — weighing the alleged costs of the Arizona law against its alleged benefits, demanding evidence of those alleged costs, noticing that the most disputed sections of the state statute merely parallel federal law — she would have reached a different result. Instead, her opinion is notable for its superficial and conclusory reasoning, both in its application of the extremely demanding standard for granting a preliminary injunction, and in her substantive analysis of SB 1070’s alleged constitutional infirmities.

You’d hardly know from reading U.S. v. Arizona that there was a single illegal alien in the country. Judge Bolton’s ruling, like the Justice Department’s brief, is couched exclusively in terms of how SB 1070 will affect legal aliens. But her reasoning in finding that SB 1070 would impermissibly burden legal immigrants, and would thus allegedly conflict with federal immigration law and policy, would make it impossible to ever enforce immigration law. It is her reasoning, not SB 1070, that conflicts with clear congressional mandates.

The Arizona statute officially affirms the power of a local police officer or sheriff’s deputy to inquire into someone’s immigration status, if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally, and if doing so is practicable. Under SB 1070, such an inquiry may occur only during a lawful stop to investigate a non-immigration offense.

Local police and deputies had the authority to make such inquiries before SB 1070, not just in Arizona, but nationwide. In 1996, Congress banned so-called sanctuary laws, by which cities and states prohibit their employees from cooperating with federal immigration authorities regarding illegal aliens. It was in the federal interest, Congress declared, that local and federal authorities cooperate in the “apprehension, detention or removal of [illegal] aliens.” As the Senate report accompanying the congressional ban on sanctuary cities declared, “illegal aliens do not have the right to remain in the United States undetected and unapprehended.” To assist the mandated state-federal cooperation on immigration matters, the INS (the precursor to today’s ICE) created an immigration clearinghouse, the Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC), to provide immigration-status information to local and state law-enforcement officials making just the sort of inquiries that SB 1070 anticipates.

The congressional ban on sanctuary laws was widely ignored, including in several Arizona cities. It was in part to reaffirm the congressional mandate to share and seek immigration information that the Arizona legislature passed SB 1070. But in making inquiries under the federal immigration laws, law-enforcement officials — whether local or federal — inevitably run the risk of asking questions of a legal alien or a U.S. citizen. Such a possibility had never been deemed a valid reason to invalidate immigration enforcement, until Judge Bolton’s opinion. When ICE agents investigate a worksite suspected of employing illegal aliens, some of the workers questioned about their status — or even all of them — may be legal residents of the U.S. Ditto any other federal immigration-enforcement action, whether in a drug safe house or at the border. The only way to guarantee that legal aliens are never asked to present their immigration papers is to suspend immigration enforcement entirely. (The same possibility of stopping innocent people applies to law enforcement generally; that possibility has also never been held to invalidate the police investigative power.) And if Congress intended to create such a blanket ban on asking legal aliens for proof of legal residency, it could have canceled the 1941 law requiring aliens to carry their certificate of alien registration. Such a requirement makes sense only on the assumption that legal aliens will upon occasion be asked to prove their legal status.

Judge Bolton nevertheless deems the possibility that legal aliens might be asked to establish their status in Arizona under SB 1070 a sufficiently large burden to create an unconstitutional conflict with federal immigration authority. Never mind that without SB 1070, Arizona officers already had the authority to make such inquiries. SB 1070 makes such inquiries more likely, says the judge, and that increased likelihood somehow meets the legal standard for finding that a state law is preempted by federal authority. (A state law unconstitutionally conflicts with federal if either “compliance with both State and federal law is impossible, or . . . the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.”)

As for the existence of the federally operated Law Enforcement Support Center clearinghouse, which presupposes just the sort of local immigration inquiries that the Arizona law contemplates, Judge Bolton asserts that because it is “currently dedicated in part to national security objectives” (emphasis added), the inquiries that would be coming from Arizona under SB 1070 would “divert it from its other responsibilities.” But every non-national-security-related inquiry is a diversion from national-security inquiries, just as national-security inquiries are a diversion from non-national-security inquiries. If Congress wanted LESC to entertain only national-security inquiries, it could so mandate. Until Congress does, however, there is nothing unconstitutional about a local officer sending a non-national-security inquiry to LESC. If the volume of inquiries eventually taxes LESC’s resources, the executive branch should request more funding. LESC was not established with a ceiling on the number of inquiries it is authorized to entertain.

The ruling’s cursory treatment of the section of SB 1070 that adopts federal immigration-documentation requirements is arguably the low point of the opinion. But a strong case could also be made for the preliminary-injunction analysis. A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must meet a three-pronged test: He must establish that he will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest. A typical case of “irreparable harm” warranting an injunction is the imminent bulldozing of a landmark building, or the administration of the death penalty. In such situations, no amount of monetary compensation could remedy the loss and restore the plaintiff to the status quo ante if the enjoined action were later to be found illegal.

By preliminarily enjoining SB 1070, Judge Bolton is implicitly declaring that even one day of its operation would cause the United States irreparable harm that could not be otherwise remedied. But she is silent as to what that harm may be. If a host of legal aliens ended up being detained unconstitutionally, they could sue for damages — the conventional remedy for unlawful detention. Judge Bolton’s tour through the “balance of equities” and “public interest” prongs of the preliminary injunction test is equally superficial; she merely announces that allowing a state to enforce a law in violation of the Constitution’s supremacy clause is “neither equitable nor in the public interest.” No mention of Arizona’s interest in the rule of law; no mention of the burden that unimpeded illegal immigration is putting on the state’s schools, hospitals, and jails.

But it gets worse. The federal government asked Judge Bolton to enjoin SB 1070 before the statute even had a chance to operate. Such so-called “facial” challenges to a law are, in the words of the Supreme Court, “the most difficult challenge to mount successfully, since the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid.” The federal government didn’t even try to make that showing, nor did the judge require it. Had SB 1070 gone into effect and produced the constitutional Armageddon that its enemies predict — with legal aliens being stopped pretextually and hauled off to jail for hours or even days at a time, say — then there might have been an argument for an injunction. But we are being asked to believe that Arizona’s law-enforcement officers are incapable — “under any possible set of conditions,” in the Supreme Court’s language — of administering SB 1070 without producing a crisis of constitutional dimension.

In reality, the reason that the law had to be enjoined preemptively was that it would not have produced a widespread trampling of rights. The hysteria around SB 1070 would have been shown to be gratuitous. That hysteria is a smokescreen to distract attention away from the real threat posed by SB 1070: not to the federal government’s constitutional powers, not to legal aliens, but to the de facto amnesty that now prevails in most of the country. The Arizona law was already inducing illegal aliens to leave the state, according to news reports, even before it went into operation, demonstrating that immigration-law enforcement can work simply by creating a deterrent to illegal entry and presence. Illegal aliens are virtually absent from the Justice Department’s brief or from Judge Bolton’s opinion, but their continued violation of American law is the only thing that would have been at odds with SB 1070.

http://article.nationalreview.com/43891 ... mac-donald

[audtatious]

BTW, who needs Congress when Obama can swipe everything with a pen?

[AZhitman]

Fox News is just a Conservative/Tea Party Propaganda machine that happens to have News in its name. Ill give up using it as a target the moment it actually does any reporting instead of being a 24/7 opinion channel designed to whip up anger and hatred in the fly over states. You never saw anyone shoot up a church becuase of a segment of Anderson Cooper...

"Fly-over states?"

OK, if you're gonna use inflammatory and ignorant characterizations like that, I have nothing more to say. Y'know, someone else who posts here on occasion uses that term (Howie), and it's just as idiotic coming from him as it is from you. He's from NJ, incidentally. Designating certain states "superior" to others based no some generalized assumption is asinine. Americans live in those states, and their borders are imaginary lines drawn on a map.

Call my state a "fly-over" state because it doesn't meet some arbitrary and imagined criteria that exists only in your head, and I'll have a real issue with it. By doing so, you're no better than the people who assume that all people from Arkansas are inbred or all people from the middle east are terrorists.

My issue with your (and others') dismissal of content SOLELY because of who presented it is this: If it's not an op-ed piece, we can at least assume the reporting is based on facts. Especially when the "incident" is quoted or substantiated in other sources. Now, not to say there isn't some "spin", but we're not talking about the National Enquirer here. Get freakin' real, dude. If Fox News and CNN and al-Jazeera all report that President Obama had oatmeal for breakfast, then how can you fault the source? If the FACTS are wrong, refute them with alternative facts.

By the way, blaming a news source for a shooting is like blaming Ozzy Osbourne for a suicide. It's dumb. But go ahead and feel free to continue to absolve people of personal responsibility, it's in the Lefty Code of Conduct.

You mean to tell me Sherriff Joe stands for peaceful handling of these people?

Disclaimer: I'm not a SJA fan. In fact, i despise him. However, with that said, what's the problem? What laws have been broken? What rights are being violated? "Peaceful handling of THESE people"? I assume you mean illegals. Until I see evidence of abuse of human rights of illegals, you're speculating. Besides, that's a matter for the courts to decide, and so far, despite being in court ALL the damn time, he's still a free man with a clean record. What's the problem, specifically?

How about the VFW that just banned the celebration of Cinco De Mayo...
http://www.azcentral.com/community/pina ... ction.html...

Did you even READ that article?

So what? Big deal. That's their right. If the populace doesn't like it, they can change it.

Besides, do you know what CDM is the celebration of? It's not even a real holiday, has nothing to do with America, and is widely regarded (even in this heavily Hispanic community) as a "whatever" celebration.

...or the candidate for office who is running on a platform of cutting off all utilities and services to illegal immigrants
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07 ... mmigrants/...

Fox News?

First off, after watching this, how can you say Fox is a "right-wing" propaganda machine? The interviewer acts like he's proposing boiling puppies and kittens in a menudo pot: http://video.foxnews.com/v/4272792/taki ... m-illegals

So what? That's his right to run on whatever crackpot ideas and platforms he wants. Don't like it? Don't vote for him.

do you deny that those with the loudest voices for this law have reached a point where inhumane treatment of these immigrants can be justified?

Radicals exist in all factions. You of all people should KNOW this.

What's inhumane? Deporting them? Cry me a river. No one's being rounded up and shot at dusk, no matter what your skewed media sources tell you.

Just as I asked of stebo multiple times, ill ask of you. Bring me an article or a statistic that proves what you claim.

Perhaps you're heard of John Morton?
http://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights/c ... leadership

You can do your own searching, you're a smart guy. He's since backpedaled, of course, but the initial memo really gives some insight into how the Administration operates before there's public outcry.

you really wanna open up the can of worms on spending? I mean really?

Sure, why not. I've posted on it before. Search my recent posts containing the word "Pelosi". This Administration makes the previos ones look like spendthrifts.

im not saying the problem doesnt exist. im saying there simply isnt evidence of the claim that the federal government has given up responsibility of inforcing the borders.

I never said "given up". THey HAVE failed, however, and your beloved PrezBo doesn't even deny it.

He can send a handful of desk jockeys to AZ to appease people who ONLY read, "Obama commits 1,600 to border security" and clap their hands and swoon over his greatness. That's not sufficient.

According to a new study by the Federation for American Immigration Reform, illegal immigration now costs U.S. taxpayers $113 billion a year — about $1,117 for every native-headed household. Arizona, which like most states is facing a severe fiscal crisis, spends $2.5 billion a year on illegal aliens. In addition, lawful residents see a daily impact on schools, hospitals and, yes, crime as a consequence of the federal government's refusal to enforce immigration laws.

Characterizing supporters of strict enforcement of laws designed to protect the public interest as "hateful" and "racist" is no different for illegal immigrants than it is for domestic terrorists, EPA violators or Wall Street swindlers. Laws are drafted and passed with the intention of enforcing them. You don't have to like the laws, but you can't blithely apply derogatory terms to those who are charged with carrying out the enforcement of those laws.

Given the "neutering" of SB1070, as of today, RIGHT NOW, what's your problem with it? Don't be upset, I'd ask that same question of the protesters across the street from my office right now, if they'd STFU long enough to have a meaningful dialogue. Of course, just asking the question gets me branded a "racist". Ignorance and blindness abounds.

I'd caution you ahead of time that, as it stands, our law is remarkably similar to laws in almost ALL other states, so your issue might be with more than just AZ. Funny how there's no outrage over any other states' laws.

[wingFeather]

The majority of California, New York and Illinois qualify as "fly over" under a liberals' definition. Have you been to the majority of towns in California? For example, who is from Baker CA? Or even East LA for that matter? They are even less relevant (under the liberal definition of "relevant") than my current state of Kentucky. Heck, even William Shatner & Rick Dees live in my area of Kentucky. Jack Rousch is also from the area. Historically, people such as Abraham Lincoln. We also have many fields where this country was fought for with the blood of our fathers.

So... please save your bigotry for DNC rallies. There is nothing irrelevant about the states that made you & supply your food.

[audtatious]

Virginia Attorney General Rules Police Can Check Immigration Status
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08 ... on-status/

[bigbadberry3]

Next time I have a question I'm keeping it to myself.

[stebo0728]

Ok, here is why we are even having this discussion in the first place. The government of Mexico has better representation in Washington than any state legislature could ever dream of. Its called the 17th Amendment.

IB - the law major - care to explain?

[AZhitman]

Next time I have a question I'm keeping it to myself.

No way. Great thread!

[IBCoupe]

Ok, here is why we are even having this discussion in the first place. The government of Mexico has better representation in Washington than any state legislature could ever dream of. Its called the 17th Amendment.

IB - the law major - care to explain?

I don't know what you're getting at.

I don't understand how our Senatorial elections get us representation of the Mexican government.

[stebo0728]

Ok that was perhaps a bit topsy turvey of a post, heres the deal. State legislations now have NO representation in Washington, because of the 17th Amendment. Mexico has its consulate, or embassy. I think I forgot you said you hadnt gotten to constitutional stuff yet maybe? Anyway, if the State legislatures were represented as they should be by the Senate, laws like this, or better ones, or better enforcement of current laws would already be happening, and this discussion would be moot.

[AZhitman]

This is a couple hundred yards from my office window:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-fVb7mvxTo[/youtube]

It’s one thing to insult America from Mexico City.

It’s quite another to do it on American soil while taunting taxpayers advocating the rule of law (under the protection of OUR police and OUR Constitution - Neither of which they're entitled to, and neither of which they have a right to).

I watched the entire Stand With Arizona event. There was no hate speech from the speakers. No ridiculing of illegals. No disparaging remarks about a corrupt Mexico. No racist remarks. Very respectful, in fact. No, the speakers simply called for the federal government to enforce the immigration laws itself has passed!

Yet they were subjected to taunts and insults from illegals, uninformed wannabe "revolutionaries", and professional thugs paid and bussed in by labor unions.

And these are the people I'm supposed to be welcoming into my neighborhood? F that.

[audtatious]

Why, ain't that quaint.

[IBCoupe]

Ok that was perhaps a bit topsy turvey of a post, heres the deal. State legislations now have NO representation in Washington, because of the 17th Amendment. Mexico has its consulate, or embassy. I think I forgot you said you hadnt gotten to constitutional stuff yet maybe? Anyway, if the State legislatures were represented as they should be by the Senate, laws like this, or better ones, or better enforcement of current laws would already be happening, and this discussion would be moot.

I'm still not understanding the problem. You're upset that the Mexican consulate (which has literally no legislative authority, like all of the other foreign embassies in the United States) is in Washington DC but the individual States don't have a voice in Washington DC (except for, of course, their popularly elected officials and the executive that's elected by State and by population)?

[stebo0728]

You're upset that the Mexican consulate (which has literally no legislative authority, like all of the other foreign embassies in the United States) is in Washington DC but the individual States don't have a voice in Washington DC (except for, of course, their popularly elected officials and the executive that's elected by State and by population)?

A. Not sure what legislative authority embassies have, but they at the very least are consulted regarding matters, and at the most they are possibly prioritized on certain issues.

B. Please show me an elected official in Washington thats elected by the State. It does not exist, the 17th Amendment made sure of this. If you want to argue that the Senate still represents the State legislature, then make that argument, but you would be wrong.

My point is, regardless of what actual power embassies may have, the fact that they have any kind of voice at all massively trumps any voice that the State legislatures have (which would be none)

[IBCoupe]

A. Not sure what legislative authority embassies have, but they at the very least are consulted regarding matters, and at the most they are possibly prioritized on certain issues.

Right, because foreign policy isn't entirely irrelevant, especially when we're talking about an issue that, say, involves a foreign border.

B. Please show me an elected official in Washington thats elected by the State. It does not exist, the 17th Amendment made sure of this. If you want to argue that the Senate still represents the State legislature, then make that argument, but you would be wrong.

It seems as if you were trying to quiz me, and were expecting me to be wrong. I haven't said anything of the sort. I wrote the phrase "popularly elected" for a reason.

My point is, regardless of what actual power embassies may have, the fact that they have any kind of voice at all massively trumps any voice that the State legislatures have (which would be none)

Are you suggesting that America should ignore the rest of the world entirely, even neighboring countries? It looks like you haven't thought through your criticism.

[stebo0728]

A. Not sure what legislative authority embassies have, but they at the very least are consulted regarding matters, and at the most they are possibly prioritized on certain issues.

Right, because foreign policy isn't entirely irrelevant, especially when we're talking about an issue that, say, involves a foreign border.

Consulted, sure, prioritized, NO. If the prioritization exists, Im not making that claim outright, just saying I would not be surprised to see that its happened.

B. Please show me an elected official in Washington thats elected by the State. It does not exist, the 17th Amendment made sure of this. If you want to argue that the Senate still represents the State legislature, then make that argument, but you would be wrong.

It seems as if you were trying to quiz me, and were expecting me to be wrong. I haven't said anything of the sort. I wrote the phrase "popularly elected" for a reason.

Maybe I misread, I thought you said "by State and population". "by State" no longer exists. This is the flaw.

My point is, regardless of what actual power embassies may have, the fact that they have any kind of voice at all massively trumps any voice that the State legislatures have (which would be none)

Are you suggesting that America should ignore the rest of the world entirely, even neighboring countries? It looks like you haven't thought through your criticism.

No not ignore, but like I said above, certainly not prioritize.

[IBCoupe]

Consulted, sure, prioritized, NO. If the prioritization exists, Im not making that claim outright, just saying I would not be surprised to see that its happened.

Are you suggesting that international policy considerations should always take a back seat to domestic policy considerations? Isn't that a little short-sighted? Doesn't it presuppose a certain absolute value to any given policy implications, and presupposes a clear and unambiguous divide between them?

Maybe I misread, I thought you said "by State and population". "by State" no longer exists. This is the flaw.

Ah, there's the confusion. "By State and population" does exist in the context within which I wrote it. That referred to the representation of interests through the Executive Branch of the government. The President is elected through the electoral college, and a State's electors are determined by a combination of the number of members in the House of Representatives (proportional to a State's population) and the number of Senators a State has (a flat number of two per State, to adequately represent a State's interest regardless of its population). That's why it often looks like a Wyoming voter has a disproportionate share of the vote, as their state is the lowest populated, but still gets two Senators and so those two electoral votes.

No not ignore, but like I said above, certainly not prioritize.

See the above critique to this same point.