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

[audtatious]

New billboard (real or Memorex?)

[stebo0728]

Lol, its english, it may as well say your mother was shrew and your father smelled of elderberries ...

[bigbadberry3]

99.9% sure this will be ruled unconstitutional but I can hope for my .1% http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100612/u ... -container

[AZhitman]

I like it.

So does 58% of the country (or more).

Smells like a majority. Let's get it done.

Honestly, I haven't heard one rational oppositional argument that I can't dismantle (without even thinking hard). The woman they interviewed for that news story, incidentally, is a mouthbreathing moron.

Phoenix resident Susan Vie, who is leading a citizen group that's behind an opposing ballot initiative. She moved to the U.S. 30 years ago from Argentina, became a naturalized citizen and now works as a client-relations representative for a vaccine company. "I see a lot of hate and racism behind it," Vie says. "Consequently, I believe it will create - and it's creating it now - a separation in our society."

She adds, "When people look at me, they will think, 'Is she legal or illegal?' I can already feel it right now."

That's not what we're thinking, Susan. We're just wondering if you're wearing underwear... or if ALL Argentinian women are paranoid dolts.

[AZhitman]

By the way, FactCheck weighs in on SB1070. Good stuff: http://www.factcheck.org/2010/06/arizon ... lease-law/

[bigbadberry3]

Honestly, I haven't heard one rational oppositional argument that I can't dismantle (without even thinking hard).

So how does it get around the constitution/supreme court?

[stebo0728]

So how does it get around the constitution/supreme court?

How is the constitution an issue? What about the bill is unconstitutional. Seems that is the way to kill bills you dont like, have the Supreme Court rule them unconstitutional, and thats the intended outcome, for bills that are truely unconstitutional, u cant just say "this bill is unconstitutional" and leave it at that. WHY is it so?

[bigbadberry3]

So how does it get around the constitution/supreme court?

How is the constitution an issue? What about the bill is unconstitutional. Seems that is the way to kill bills you dont like, have the Supreme Court rule them unconstitutional, and thats the intended outcome, for bills that are truely unconstitutional, u cant just say "this bill is unconstitutional" and leave it at that. WHY is it so?

This one is pretty blatant. http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am14.html

Read the first clause.

[audtatious]

The 14th Amendment is not necessarily clear as there have been cases ruled on which stated both ways. In order to get a full ruling on whether those born in the US of illegals are citizens or not would have to go through the SCOTUS for a ruling. With Sotomayor we know there is at least one vote for citizenship. Dunno about the rest.

[stebo0728]

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Ok so what privileges or immunities does this law abridge for any citizen in Arizona?

[bigbadberry3]

Stebo, did you see that I was referring to a bill in the works not the SB1070 bill?

[stebo0728]

Oh many apologies bigbad, i did manage to gloss over that small detail ... let me look back at the bill u were referring to and ill weigh back in ... again many apologies ^:)^

[stebo0728]

Ok so this bill seeks to deal with anchor babies, I totally agree with what they want to do, although I disagree with how they are trying to do it. A state bill alone that stands in contradiction with the constitution cant stand. I think dropping citizenship automation to children born to illegals is sound legislation, but to correctly deal with it, it will have to be done at the constitutional level. Then once the constitution is amended as such, then said bills will no longer be unconstitutional.

[bigbadberry3]

No biggy Stebo, people love to ignore me. I do agree with you that the idea is right but Arizona by itself will not be able to change the constitution.

[AZhitman]

Correct.

But with the bulk of the country approving of what we're doing here in AZ, it shouldn't be hard to pressure enough legislators to get that amended at the national level.

Beats the hell out of some of the other nonsense crap they've been pondering up there on Capitol Hill.

[turbonxsx]

I am 100% for the new laws in Arizona concerning illegal immagrants

[AZhitman]

My position has slowly shifted since the bill was introduced (as evidenced by my posts).

Those who resorted to idiotic means to "protest" the bill were the catalyst for me. I simply can't be counted with that bunch of mouthbreathing cretins.

[srellim234]

Couldn't think of a better place to post this link to today's Mallard Fillmore comic strip. In case the link updates to newer strips daily, look up the 7/27/2010 strip of Obama speaking to himself.

http://www.seattlepi.com/fun/comic.asp? ... d_Fillmore

It smacks of way too much truth.

[audtatious]

Looks like portions of the bill are suspended for now pending further investigation by the courts. No surprise

[AZhitman]

Correct.

The bill has been, in some ways, neutered.

However, it's important to note that local police are enforcing immigration laws all over the country, and this won't change that in the least.

Two things in this strike me as humorous:

Many of the local opposition groups are behaving as if this means the doors have been thrown open, as if illegal immigration is somehow now "legal". I lol'ed.

For all the criticism CA leveled at AZ, it's suspected that nearly a half-million illegals have left AZ for CA. Have fun taking care of them over there in Los Bankruptopolis. Love it.

The one somewhat scary revelation in all this? NM is issuing drivers' licenses to illegals. What the hell? Richardson, you're a colossal moron.

[audtatious]

What's being released right now is neutered until "those parts" can come under further scrutiny by the courts. Pretty much cops can't background check anyone nor can they harass day laborers from gathering for work. Looks like forgery of DL's and SSN's are OK by the judge as cops can't check for those either.

So, NM is issuing DL's to illegals. Do they not have a law that states illegals must have proper car insurance because I know car insurance companies want SSN's and other information from the policy holders to show they are citizens. If the illegals are providing false information in order to get car insurance it's simply more fraud.

The wheel goes round and round.

Time for the 9th Circuit to dig their hand in it. When it comes out it will probably allow illegals to go down the street and demand money from US citizens.....

[bigbadberry3]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100728/ap_ ... angry_roma

France showing some back bone.

[ADDirishboy]

Wait, NM is actually just handing out DL's to illegals?

I have CNN on right now, and EVERY story is about 1070 right now. They just showed a story about some chick who has been here almost her whole life and is illegal. She was working at a Panda Express where there were 11 illegals working. She has a 3 year old daughter who is a legal immigrant here. She was found guilty and is supposed to be being deported but she is appealing. Sob story FTL.

It doesn't matter how long you've been here illegally. It doesn't matter if you have a job. It matters that you're here illegally. Yes, I agree that we need to try and make the process of getting a visa more efficient. But the flaw in that system does not give you the right to come here of your own accord, illegally.

[AZhitman]

The language in the ruling makes it VERY clear that the issues with the bill were NOT about its Constitutionality.

They simply bring us back to the crux of what we were having a problem with all along: The Feds don't want to enforce existing immigration laws. Period. The injunction mentions "undue burdens" on the federal system, clearly pointing out that this is simply a control issue. They don't want their hand forced by a state.

Most, if not ALL, of the issues that Bolton had with the law can be simply addressed by re-wording. This thing isn't anywhere close to dead. The DOJ did a poor job, and that's looking at it from BOTH sides of the issue.

[wingFeather]

The Feds don't want to enforce existing immigration laws.

Sad but true. I wish there was a way to make them. It's our country, right?

[heliochrome85]

The language in the ruling makes it VERY clear that the issues with the bill were NOT about its Constitutionality.

They simply bring us back to the crux of what we were having a problem with all along: The Feds don't want to enforce existing immigration laws. Period. The injunction mentions "undue burdens" on the federal system, clearly pointing out that this is simply a control issue. They don't want their hand forced by a state.

Most, if not ALL, of the issues that Bolton had with the law can be simply addressed by re-wording. This thing isn't anywhere close to dead. The DOJ did a poor job, and that's looking at it from BOTH sides of the issue.

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

short of shooting them on the spot, which im sure some of those loudest voices in AZ wouldnt be opposed to, the Feds are doing all they can. 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. so, like i asked, what would YOU like to see done that would constitute the Federal Government living up to its responsibility. As til now, i have yet to see ANY evidence of its reticence about enforcing the law.

[stebo0728]

The language in the ruling makes it VERY clear that the issues with the bill were NOT about its Constitutionality.

They simply bring us back to the crux of what we were having a problem with all along: The Feds don't want to enforce existing immigration laws. Period. The injunction mentions "undue burdens" on the federal system, clearly pointing out that this is simply a control issue. They don't want their hand forced by a state.

Most, if not ALL, of the issues that Bolton had with the law can be simply addressed by re-wording. This thing isn't anywhere close to dead. The DOJ did a poor job, and that's looking at it from BOTH sides of the issue.

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

short of shooting them on the spot, which im sure some of those loudest voices in AZ wouldnt be opposed to, the Feds are doing all they can. 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. so, like i asked, what would YOU like to see done that would constitute the Federal Government living up to its responsibility. As til now, i have yet to see ANY evidence of its reticence about enforcing the law.

How about its negligence to approach San Fran and their determination to NOT enforce the law.

[heliochrome85]

thanks for making my point.

"How about its negligence to approach San Fran and their determination to NOT enforce the law."
thanks for the proof.

[stebo0728]

How does the failure of the government to deal with NON enforcement of the law prove that the government is NOT reluctant to enforce the law? I think you lost me somewhere, speak slower, im slightly retarded, and a bit of a derp

[heliochrome85]

How does the failure of the government to deal with NON enforcement of the law prove that the government is NOT reluctant to enforce the law? I think you lost me somewhere, speak slower, im slightly retarded, and a bit of a derp

i had asked for evidence of such. you brought no numbers, no links, nothing. just the charge that they werent doing their job. as i showed in the washington post article, deportations are up 25% since 2007, and up 10% since Bush left the white house. So again I ask, where is the evidence that they arent doing their job?