Arizona Governor signs new immigration law, Obama disagrees with the states rights?

Buiild a moat, build a fence, electrify it, fill the moat with crocodiles, lay a mine-field 100 yards wide, then build another wall manned with machine gun turrets - I'm 100% in favor of that

Actually I think building a MOAT and filling it with crocodiles is probably the cheapest option. We could just ask all of the residences near the fence to get very long water hoses and run them from their spigots. The govt wouldn't pay a dime because the home owners would through their water bill...win...win!

Who could complain, it will bring water and help ecologically.
 
No one here is changing anyone else's opinion, I believe the law will go the SCOTUS, we'll let them decide.

:beer1:


When it gets there, it'll be 5-4 one way or the other. So in reality, we have to wait and see what Justice Kennedy thinks about this.:shake:
 
Well, there's Fantasy Land, and then there's the real world of Law Enforcement. :rolleyes:




:beer1:



Same thing your child will hear from "the rest of the world" when he's interdicting Cubans, Haitians, Dominicans, or Mexicans. People will assume what they will about law enforcement, but you have offspring involved.
 
Approval by the populous does not equate to constitutionality. The justice system will have its say one way or the other.

Is the current Federal law that's on the books now, you know, the one that they used to write the new Arizona law, Constitutional?
 
How many senators and congressmen do you believe read the entire Health Care bill before voting against it?

All of them? Some of them? None of them?

How is Holder's and Obama's objection to an unread bill any different?

Remember that old saying, "all you really need to know you learned in kindergarten"? Two wrongs don't make a right.
 
Somebody asked how this bill is any different than the healthcare bill. The healthcare bill only had about 1,999 pages of pork and other laws that had nothing to do with healthcare. And it was shoved through without the congress people having time to read it.
 
Round 1: US-10 AZ-8

Wrote Judge Bolton:

If enforcement of the portions of S.B. 1070 for which the Court finds a likelihood of preemption is not enjoined, the United States is likely to suffer irreparable harm. This is so because the federal government’s ability to enforce its policies and achieve its objectives will be undermined by the state’s enforcement of statutes that interfere with federal law, even if the Court were to conclude that the state statutes have substantially the same goals as federal law.


http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/07/28/in-arizona-immigration-case-so-what-happens-next/


Round 2 after the commercial break.
 
So then, lets just stop enforcing other laws that cost the Government a lot of dough to pursue...what a joke.

I'm actually happy, this will bring the out issue to more than just the "boarder state folks", now everyone knows Obama and his regime are fighting for illegal 's, and not American Citizens. Forget States rights...lol
 
Just an FYI...for those of you that do NOT live in Arizona as I do.

I can drive from my house, 10-20 minutes in ANY direction, and arrive at multiple locations where you will find from 10-50 males, all of "Mexican, Central/Southern American" origin...waiting in large groups. Drive a pickup up to them and holler "Trabajo!" And the truck bed will be overrun with people! Quite often they will fight amongst themselves to get in, but MOST times they're fairly orderly.

They won't speak English, other than perhaps a few words, and they'll do anything you want for whatever you're willing to pay them, for the most part.

In the meantime, those that aren't picked, will live on that location...the trash and other "detritus" that will naturally occur are pretty bad. And police will drive right by them because ICE will normally not take them in unless there's been a crime committed, there are just too many of these locations.

I have hired a commercial landscaping company to do work at my home. The crew that showed up, only the foreman spoke English. He told the work crew what was to be done, and then he left.

None of them realized I speak Spanish, until I asked several where they were from. They then became VERY quiet and nervous. When I told them at lunch that I was a military officer and would be back after lunch and would bring friends to see their work, they looked VERY upset.

When my wife and I arrived after lunch, there was nobody there. I called the foreman and he was furious!! "What did you say to them?" I told him and asked "...is there a problem with the legal status of your work crews?"

He hung up on me.

The next crew that arrived was a mixed anglo/non-anglo group and they were laughing about what happened. They told me "...you did good sir, you caught the boss!"

That's the "norm" in Arizona today.

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83
 
A law requiring all employers to use E-Verify would eliminate Fleiger's problem and is headed to the US Supreme Court. If it is upheld, the landscape company would be held liable.
As it stands, Federal law requires employees to supply proof of eligibility to work in this country; employees are not required to verify that proof.
Flieger - did you call ICE? They are probably overworked and would not show up at the landscape company but if they don't have proper 'documentation' what they are doing is blatanly illegal.
 
Certainly wouldn't want the federal government spending money on enforcing immigration law when we have all of the unemployed to extend benefits to. :rolleyes:
 
A law requiring all employers to use E-Verify would eliminate Fleiger's problem and is headed to the US Supreme Court. If it is upheld, the landscape company would be held liable.
As it stands, Federal law requires employees to supply proof of eligibility to work in this country; employees are not required to verify that proof.
Flieger - did you call ICE? They are probably overworked and would not show up at the landscape company but if they don't have proper 'documentation' what they are doing is blatanly illegal.

I did report the company to the authorities...and was told "...yeah, they have a lengthy list of complaints..."

And that was that. NOTHING was done.

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83
 
Yeah - I just read where ICE is moving away from employer raids. Too bad - if you take away the work, you take away the incentive. sorta like mice.

ICE is clearly overworked and underbudgeted. IMO - they just have too broad of a mission. Heck, the same agency that investigates child porn is in charge of immigration. Doesn't make sense to me.
Once they take an illegal into custody they house them, usually in a section of a county jail and it takes ages and ages to get them deported. Deport them and they just keep coming back.
 
The problem is: There's too many people in Washington who honestly believe that the Federal government has, and is SUPPOSE to have, the greatest power in our country. Even the majority of citizens believe this to be true. Reason being, that all disputes get escalated through appeal to entities such as federal or the supreme court. Thus, many people believe that this means the federal government is the ultimate authority.

Unfortunately, many of these people have never read the constitution. In a recent ruling to Chicago and a couple of years ago with D.C. on individual's rights to own guns, they made it quite clear that the CITIZEN has the most rights; the states have the next level of rights; and the federal government follows. The federal government should only be involved with issues that cross state or national boundaries; e.g. transportation system, military, import/export trade, etc... And yes, the federal government should be involved with illegal immigration. But if a state feels that the federal government isn't addressing the situation properly or in a timely manner, the state has EVERY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to take matters into their own hands. The federal government works for the states, and the states work for the people. The constitution and bill of rights are very specific that it isn't RIGHTS that they discuss, but rather LIMITATIONS on the government so that the rights of the citizens aren't infringed. The ONLY legal issue that should be happening is the state of Arizona SUING the federal government for not doing their job. The federal government should not have any say in what Arizona does. Not unless what they are doing is unconstitutional and infringes on the rights of the citizens. And that can't be happening, because the entire concept of the Arizona proposal is towards "Illegal Immigrants", who by their very nature do not and should not be protected by any constitutional rights. They are still afforded "Human Rights", but that is different. The federal government needs to either show that they are actively addressing the issue; thus satisfying their responsibility; and allow Arizona to back off, or the federal government needs to stay out of it. They have been negligent in their responsibilities to the states.

Matters like these do not require constitutional law degrees to understand. Our founding fathers were pretty clear in their development of our country. You only need lawyers if you WANT to distort and change the meaning of the constitution. And if you can get a supreme court to basically MAKE LAW instead of interpreting, then you need lawyers. And that's exactly what has happened. Our congress allows the supreme court to change the meaning of the laws they've enacted. If the supreme court changes the meaning of a law, the congress is suppose to go back in and change the law so that it represents the meaning they had intended. Unfortunately, our government; on all political sides; has become corrupted because of power and money.
 
I was absolutely disgusted by Judge Bolton's ruling striking down portions of AZ's SB1070. The absurdity of her ruling can be summed up by two examples that were discussed on www.chandlerswatch.com:

a. "So now a van driver arrested by a state trooper for driving 120 miles per hour with 30 people stuffed under his floorboards will still get a speeding ticket, but the officer can’t ask about his immigration status. Nothing to see here; move along."

b. "By the logic of Bolton’s ruling, the state trooper who arrested Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh on a speeding violation in 1995 would now be prohibited from arresting him for the federal crime of the bombing, too."

In his first book, Men in Black, and later in Liberty and Tyranny, radio talk show host and NYT best-selling author Mark Levin talks about how unelected judges are ruling against the will of the people. He compares it to the Politburo of the former Soviet Union. Liberals have broken the code--Much of their far-left agenda cannot pass through the normal legislative process; therefore, they need activist judges to end-run the system. That’s why they fought tooth and nail against Bush judicial nominees who had a conservative philosophy, and filibustered his nominees (first in our history).

I would love to take an American Government class and write a paper stating that the purpose of the Judicial Department is to make laws, not interpret the Constitution.
 
Yeah, Luigi I agree. That pesky little document called the US Constitution gets in the way.
Imagine being stopped for going 35 in a 30 mph and the name on your driver's license says "Luigi".
The officer must now ask for your birth certificate or legal resident papers and if you don't have them you are hauled off to jail.

they need to get illegals out

WITHOUT LEGALS BEING TARGETED

step up border patrol
no more stop and drop/anchor babies- made another amendment
 
As a wise man once said "If your boat is sinking, first plug the leak and then start to bail". Close the boarder.:thumb:
 
Back
Top