MR

Its about time ! The gang violence has escalated because noone attempted to do much.

i know many think obama has not done enough, but his ordering/offering up the guard for this is a move in the right direction.

Lula wrote:i know many think obama has not done enough, but his ordering/offering up the guard for this is a move in the right direction.

It's nothing but political showboating in anticipation of the upcoming trial about AZ's new law.

steveo777 wrote:

Lula wrote:i know many think obama has not done enough, but his ordering/offering up the guard for this is a move in the right direction.

It's nothing but political showboating in anticipation of the upcoming trial about AZ's new law.

No.

1- Arizona's new law will be overturned.

2- Arnold is a lame duck Gov. When either Brown or Whitman take over, neither will enforce the border.


This whole AZ law is a temporary fad. Don't get comfortable folks.

Actually Deano:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... inionsbox1

Supporters and opponents of S.B. 1070 assume that racial profiling is unconstitutional, largely because many Americans believe that it ought to be. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has approved the racial profiling permitted -- indeed encouraged -- by S.B. 1070.

In a 1975 case regarding the Border Patrol's power to stop vehicles near the U.S.-Mexico border and question the occupants about their citizenship and immigration status, United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, the high court ruled that the "likelihood that any given person of Mexican ancestry is an alien is high enough to make Mexican appearance a relevant factor." In 1982 the Arizona Supreme Court agreed, ruling in State v. Graciano that "enforcement of immigration laws often involves a relevant consideration of ethnic factors."

It's going to be difficult to argue that the AZ law is unconstitutional when the SCOTUS has already ruled that what the AZ law calls for is constitutional...

I still think the fix is simple..

1. Enforce the existing laws on the books by securing the border FIRST.
2. Prosecute employers who employ illegals

Then a dialogue about those in the country illegally can be had.

He's pretty cock sure of himself, isn't he?

Rockindeano wrote:

steveo777 wrote:

Lula wrote:i know many think obama has not done enough, but his ordering/offering up the guard for this is a move in the right direction.

It's nothing but political showboating in anticipation of the upcoming trial about AZ's new law.

No.

1- Arizona's new law will be overturned.

2- Arnold is a lame duck Gov. When either Brown or Whitman take over, neither will enforce the border.
This whole AZ law is a temporary fad. Don't get comfortable folks.

Agree with Deano that the AZ law is probably a temporary thing. In some respects I think they intended for it to be controversial and something to gain attention because for states like CA, AZ, NM, & TX, something needs to be done. Unfortunately when 45 or so other states don't have as widespread of the issue or not at all, they don't care, and it takes something at the far end of a spectrum to make people wake up and take notice.

Arnold deployed the Guard to the border in 2006 also. I think they are restricted from doing anything beyond handing out a Bienvenidos a América! packet and an EBT card.

I also agree that the law is a likely to be only intended to get the Feds to start enforcing the federal law.... but I also think its healthy that AZ is forcing the Feds to deal with their own incompetence...

Don wrote:Arnold deployed the Guard to the border in 2006 also. I think they are restricted from doing anything beyond handing out a Bienvenidos a América! packet and an EBT card.

Hey dude, KFC now accepts the EBT card. Lucky poor fuckers. I could mow down that 10 piece meal daily. 10 pieces, 2 large sides, 6 biscuits and a chocolate cake for 19.99. Awesome. Then I have the squirts for 3 days after wards.

Rockindeano wrote:

Don wrote:Arnold deployed the Guard to the border in 2006 also. I think they are restricted from doing anything beyond handing out a Bienvenidos a América! packet and an EBT card.

Hey dude, KFC now accepts the EBT card. Lucky poor fuckers. I could mow down that 10 piece meal daily. 10 pieces, 2 large sides, 6 biscuits and a chocolate cake for 19.99. Awesome. Then I have the squirts for 3 days after wards.

I'm on the Popeye's wagon for now, 99¢ leg & wing combo on Tuesday and Thursday. Three or four of those do the trick for me.

Don wrote:

Rockindeano wrote:

Don wrote:Arnold deployed the Guard to the border in 2006 also. I think they are restricted from doing anything beyond handing out a Bienvenidos a América! packet and an EBT card.

Hey dude, KFC now accepts the EBT card. Lucky poor fuckers. I could mow down that 10 piece meal daily. 10 pieces, 2 large sides, 6 biscuits and a chocolate cake for 19.99. Awesome. Then I have the squirts for 3 days after wards.

I'm on the Popeye's wagon for now, 99¢ leg & wing combo on Tuesday and Thursday. Three or four of those do the trick for me.

Popeye's rocks but why, when I lived in California did I always have to go to the ghetto to get the best chicken? There were never any Popeye's or Church's in the white hoods. I guess the stereotypes are true.

You can order your Chicken and get propositioned by a Ho in the drive thru at the same time.

steveo777 wrote:

Don wrote:

Rockindeano wrote:

Don wrote:Arnold deployed the Guard to the border in 2006 also. I think they are restricted from doing anything beyond handing out a Bienvenidos a América! packet and an EBT card.

Hey dude, KFC now accepts the EBT card. Lucky poor fuckers. I could mow down that 10 piece meal daily. 10 pieces, 2 large sides, 6 biscuits and a chocolate cake for 19.99. Awesome. Then I have the squirts for 3 days after wards.

I'm on the Popeye's wagon for now, 99¢ leg & wing combo on Tuesday and Thursday. Three or four of those do the trick for me.

Popeye's rocks but why, when I lived in California did I always have to go to the ghetto to get the best chicken? There were never any Popeye's or Church's in the white hoods. I guess the stereotypes are true.

You can order your Chicken and get propositioned by a Ho in the drive thru at the same time.

I used to devour Pioneer chicken. Remember that shit? They had the big fat fucker hauling ass atop a huge wagon train for a store sign.. Loved their chicken.

1- Arizona's new law will be overturned.

8 other states are joining Arizona in the lawsuit, my corrupt Alien infested state
of Illinois never will, but dont be so sure Deano they will lose, I hope your wrong......

Ray

steveo777 wrote:

Don wrote:

Rockindeano wrote:

Don wrote:Arnold deployed the Guard to the border in 2006 also. I think they are restricted from doing anything beyond handing out a Bienvenidos a América! packet and an EBT card.

Hey dude, KFC now accepts the EBT card. Lucky poor fuckers. I could mow down that 10 piece meal daily. 10 pieces, 2 large sides, 6 biscuits and a chocolate cake for 19.99. Awesome. Then I have the squirts for 3 days after wards.

I'm on the Popeye's wagon for now, 99¢ leg & wing combo on Tuesday and Thursday. Three or four of those do the trick for me.

Popeye's rocks but why, when I lived in California did I always have to go to the ghetto to get the best chicken? There were never any Popeye's or Church's in the white hoods. I guess the stereotypes are true.

You can order your Chicken and get propositioned by a Ho in the drive thru at the same time.

I work on Hollywood Way in Burbank and there are four of them within a five mile radius. Not very close to the hood.

Rockindeano wrote:
I used to devour Pioneer chicken. Remember that shit? They had the big fat fucker hauling ass atop a huge wagon train for a store sign.. Loved their chicken.

I used to hit those up all the time, one near Dodger Stadium in Echo Park and the other across from KCET near Kaiser on Sunset.

Arizona’s immigration law may survive.

http://jonjayray.wordpress.com/2010/05/ ... y-survive/

Opponents of Arizona’s draconian immigration enforcement law are hoping that federal courts will rule the measure unconstitutional, heading off a spate of “copycat” legislation elsewhere.

If only it were so simple. In fact, a growing number of state immigration laws are being upheld by federal courts – and as improbable as it sounds – Arizona’s dangerous new law could survive also.

What makes opponents so confident that laws like Arizona’s are unconstitutional? It can all be summed up in a single word: “pre-emption”. That’s the legal principle that appears to reserve sole authority for immigration policy to the federal government, and that “pre-empts” state laws that run counter to that authority.

But therein lies the rub. Many states, including Arizona, aren’t claiming to exercise an “inherent” state authority on immigration policy. Instead, they’re claiming to be upholding existing federal law. And they’re even citing past supreme court precedents – like the famous De Canas decision of 1976 – to suggest that their law-making is expressly permitted by the constitution.

In fact, Arizona passed an immigration enforcement law in 2007 that most legal observers at the time assumed would be overturned – but it wasn’t. Despite legal challenges, federal courts twice upheld that law, and it remains on the books today.

What happened in 2008 is instructive. Current employer sanctions law, passed as part of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, penalises businesses that knowingly hire illegal immigrants with monetary fines. But many states are dissatisfied with the law, because the fines are nominal and because employers are not really required to verify that a worker is in the country legally.

So Arizona decided to write a law that would penalise Arizona’s businesses that hired illegal workers with something far more severe – a suspension of their business licence. It also required that employers use a voluntary federal programme known as “E-Verify” to determine whether prospective workers were in the country legally.

Critics howled that Arizona had no right to pass its own employer sanctions law because the feds had “pre-empted” states from doing so. Moreover, since E-Verify was still in development, and not yet officially the law of the land, Arizona was exceeding its authority to mandate that E-Verify be used in Arizona.

But two federal courts, including the 9th circuit court of appeals, ruled that Arizona did have that right. According to the court, the 1986 IRCA law, while specifically pre-empting state laws that would fine businesses, had not extended that same authority to licensing, since, as the court noted, states, not the federal government, typically have responsibility for this area.

The 9th circuit court also defended Arizona’s use of E-Verify, noting that while Congress hadn’t mandated its use, “that does not, in and of itself, indicate that Congress intended to prevent states from making participation mandatory”. In other words, unless Congress explicitly pre-empted it, Arizona could tailor E-Verify to suit its own needs.

The 9th circuit court precedent is not the only cause for concern. There’s also a little-noticed Bush administration legal finding from 2002 that overturns past executive branch policy on the question of a state’s “inherent authority” to make immigration policy. The Bush-era finding is not the law of the land, and many legal observers consider it tendentious, and indeed, at odds with the constitution.

But it could have a major impact on whether the Obama administration actually moves forward with its threat to challenge Arizona’s new enforcement law in court. Presidents are notoriously reluctant to do that if there is a current legal finding that would not support such action. Obama, in effect, would have to issue a new legal finding first, which in the current pre-election climate is considered highly unlikely.

In any event, Arizona’s new immigration enforcement law, like its employer sanctions law, is based, in part, on current federal law. Arizona already has an agreement with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency under Section 287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act which allows it to arrest illegal immigrants and hold them in local jails until ICE can pick them up, and process them for deportation. It’s supposed to be applied primarily to “criminal” aliens – hard core felony offenders – but in practice it has swept up aliens suspected of even minor offences, including traffic infractions.

Which raises the same problem seen earlier with employer sanctions: if Arizona’s role in routine immigration law enforcement is already federally mandated, how could the feds move to pre-empt that role now?

Arizona will argue they can’t. However, those suing the state will say that Arizona is exceeding federal authority by defining an illegal alien’s “unlawful presence” as a state crime – trespassing. Under current federal law, unlawful presence is a civil violation, not a crime – federal or otherwise. Civil violations are not punishable with criminal sanctions, such as jail time. Those caught are simply deported. But in theory, those Arizona detains under its new enforcement law would be subject to uniquely state criminal penalties – a legal first.

But does that mean Arizona’s law is unconstitutional? Not necessarily. Federal law may define “unlawful presence” as a civil violation, but paradoxically, it also defines the prior act of “illegal entry” as a crime, not a civil violation. Arizona might end up claiming that the dividing line between the two is meaningless. Moreover, the feds have never expressly forbidden states from imposing their own criminal sanctions on aliens.

And what of the much ballyhooed issue of “racial profiling”? It turns out it’s not a slam dunk, either. Arizona’s law not only expressly prohibits racial profiling, but it’s likely to be implemented in a way that insulates police from charges of profiling. The simplest way? The police simply ask anyone they pull over for proof that they have a legal right to be in the United States – white conservative-looking Anglos and brown-skinned Spanish-speakers alike. Sound preposterous? It’s worked before.

In the end, if Arizona can convince the courts that its state law is consistent with federal intent – albeit tailored to Arizona’s special concern, as a border state, with rampant illegal entry – its controversial new enforcement law could well survive.

Don wrote:Arizona’s immigration law may survive.

http://jonjayray.wordpress.com/2010/05/ ... y-survive/

Opponents of Arizona’s draconian immigration enforcement law are hoping that federal courts will rule the measure unconstitutional, heading off a spate of “copycat” legislation elsewhere.

If only it were so simple. In fact, a growing number of state immigration laws are being upheld by federal courts – and as improbable as it sounds – Arizona’s dangerous new law could survive also.

What makes opponents so confident that laws like Arizona’s are unconstitutional? It can all be summed up in a single word: “pre-emption”. That’s the legal principle that appears to reserve sole authority for immigration policy to the federal government, and that “pre-empts” state laws that run counter to that authority.

But therein lies the rub. Many states, including Arizona, aren’t claiming to exercise an “inherent” state authority on immigration policy. Instead, they’re claiming to be upholding existing federal law. And they’re even citing past supreme court precedents – like the famous De Canas decision of 1976 – to suggest that their law-making is expressly permitted by the constitution.

In fact, Arizona passed an immigration enforcement law in 2007 that most legal observers at the time assumed would be overturned – but it wasn’t. Despite legal challenges, federal courts twice upheld that law, and it remains on the books today.

What happened in 2008 is instructive. Current employer sanctions law, passed as part of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, penalises businesses that knowingly hire illegal immigrants with monetary fines. But many states are dissatisfied with the law, because the fines are nominal and because employers are not really required to verify that a worker is in the country legally.

So Arizona decided to write a law that would penalise Arizona’s businesses that hired illegal workers with something far more severe – a suspension of their business licence. It also required that employers use a voluntary federal programme known as “E-Verify” to determine whether prospective workers were in the country legally.

Critics howled that Arizona had no right to pass its own employer sanctions law because the feds had “pre-empted” states from doing so. Moreover, since E-Verify was still in development, and not yet officially the law of the land, Arizona was exceeding its authority to mandate that E-Verify be used in Arizona.

But two federal courts, including the 9th circuit court of appeals, ruled that Arizona did have that right. According to the court, the 1986 IRCA law, while specifically pre-empting state laws that would fine businesses, had not extended that same authority to licensing, since, as the court noted, states, not the federal government, typically have responsibility for this area.

The 9th circuit court also defended Arizona’s use of E-Verify, noting that while Congress hadn’t mandated its use, “that does not, in and of itself, indicate that Congress intended to prevent states from making participation mandatory”. In other words, unless Congress explicitly pre-empted it, Arizona could tailor E-Verify to suit its own needs.

The 9th circuit court precedent is not the only cause for concern. There’s also a little-noticed Bush administration legal finding from 2002 that overturns past executive branch policy on the question of a state’s “inherent authority” to make immigration policy. The Bush-era finding is not the law of the land, and many legal observers consider it tendentious, and indeed, at odds with the constitution.

But it could have a major impact on whether the Obama administration actually moves forward with its threat to challenge Arizona’s new enforcement law in court. Presidents are notoriously reluctant to do that if there is a current legal finding that would not support such action. Obama, in effect, would have to issue a new legal finding first, which in the current pre-election climate is considered highly unlikely.

In any event, Arizona’s new immigration enforcement law, like its employer sanctions law, is based, in part, on current federal law. Arizona already has an agreement with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency under Section 287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act which allows it to arrest illegal immigrants and hold them in local jails until ICE can pick them up, and process them for deportation. It’s supposed to be applied primarily to “criminal” aliens – hard core felony offenders – but in practice it has swept up aliens suspected of even minor offences, including traffic infractions.

Which raises the same problem seen earlier with employer sanctions: if Arizona’s role in routine immigration law enforcement is already federally mandated, how could the feds move to pre-empt that role now?

Arizona will argue they can’t. However, those suing the state will say that Arizona is exceeding federal authority by defining an illegal alien’s “unlawful presence” as a state crime – trespassing. Under current federal law, unlawful presence is a civil violation, not a crime – federal or otherwise. Civil violations are not punishable with criminal sanctions, such as jail time. Those caught are simply deported. But in theory, those Arizona detains under its new enforcement law would be subject to uniquely state criminal penalties – a legal first.

But does that mean Arizona’s law is unconstitutional? Not necessarily. Federal law may define “unlawful presence” as a civil violation, but paradoxically, it also defines the prior act of “illegal entry” as a crime, not a civil violation. Arizona might end up claiming that the dividing line between the two is meaningless. Moreover, the feds have never expressly forbidden states from imposing their own criminal sanctions on aliens.

And what of the much ballyhooed issue of “racial profiling”? It turns out it’s not a slam dunk, either. Arizona’s law not only expressly prohibits racial profiling, but it’s likely to be implemented in a way that insulates police from charges of profiling. The simplest way? The police simply ask anyone they pull over for proof that they have a legal right to be in the United States – white conservative-looking Anglos and brown-skinned Spanish-speakers alike. Sound preposterous? It’s worked before.

In the end, if Arizona can convince the courts that its state law is consistent with federal intent – albeit tailored to Arizona’s special concern, as a border state, with rampant illegal entry – its controversial new enforcement law could well survive.

As soon as I reached the word "penalises," I quit reading. Any commentary from and International entity has no place in my mind. They can worry about their own sorry asses.

I got this in an email today and it may have already been posted here so if it's a repeat, my deepest apologies....

IF YOU CROSS THE NORTH KOREAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET 12 YEARS HARD LABOR.

IF YOU CROSS THE IRANIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU ARE DETAINED INDEFINITELY.

IF YOU CROSS THE AFGHAN BORDER ILLEGALLY, YOU GET SHOT.

IF YOU CROSS THE SAUDI ARABIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE JAILED.

IF YOU CROSS THE CHINESE BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU MAY NEVER BE HEARD FROM AGAIN.

IF YOU CROSS THE VENEZUELAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE BRANDED A SPY AND YOUR FATE WILL BE SEALED.

IF YOU CROSS THE CUBAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE THROWN INTO POLITICAL PRISON TO ROT.
IF YOU CROSS THE U.S. BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU:

GET A JOB, A DRIVERS LICENSE, SOCIAL SECURITY CARD, WELFARE, FOOD STAMPS, CREDIT CARDS, SUBSIDIZED RENT OR A LOAN TO BUY A HOUSE, FREE EDUCATION, FREE HEALTH CARE, A LOBBYIST IN WASHINGTON AND IN MANY INSTANCES YOU CAN VOTE

good post Angel...... just sickening !

USA - the land of opportunity!

WalkInMyShoes wrote:USA - the land of opportunity!

Yes, but it might be time for a bit of nationalistic snobbery.

WalkInMyShoes wrote:USA - the land of opportunity!

There is all kinds of opportunity, if you don't start your time in the U.S. by breaking into it.

Rick wrote:

WalkInMyShoes wrote:USA - the land of opportunity!

There is all kinds of opportunity, if you don't start your time in the U.S. by breaking into it.

That's what I meant - the opportunity to get welfare, the opportunity to get food stamps, the opportunity to have subsidized rent, the opportunity for a good education - DESPITE being here illegally. It was meant to be sarcastic.

Rick wrote:

WalkInMyShoes wrote:USA - the land of opportunity!

There is all kinds of opportunity, if you don't start your time in the U.S. by breaking into it.

Yeah and somehow I think that when all these women come in here and start punching out kids like a factory that it ain't because they are Catholic and don't believe in birth control. Every one of them represents a pay raise and another anchor to the USA. We really get to watch our tax dollars at work.........for them!

I'm gonna write the I.R.S. and tell them when they get rid of all these illegal fucks, I'll start paying my taxes again!

steveo777 wrote:Yeah and somehow I think that when all these women come in here and start punching out kids like a factory that it ain't because they are Catholic and don't believe in birth control. Every one of them represents a pay raise and another anchor to the USA. We really get to watch our tax dollars at work.........for them!

I'm gonna write the I.R.S. and tell them when they get rid of all these illegal fucks, I'll start paying my taxes again!

WHOA Stevo.....there are men involved in this process too.......while I agree with what you are saying-don't blame it entirely on women...

It's always baffled me why we don't just shoot anyone illegally crossing the border. The problem would be gone almost immediately.

Angel wrote:

steveo777 wrote:Yeah and somehow I think that when all these women come in here and start punching out kids like a factory that it ain't because they are Catholic and don't believe in birth control. Every one of them represents a pay raise and another anchor to the USA. We really get to watch our tax dollars at work.........for them!

I'm gonna write the I.R.S. and tell them when they get rid of all these illegal fucks, I'll start paying my taxes again!

WHOA Stevo.....there are men involved in this process too.......while I agree with what you are saying-don't blame it entirely on women...

You're right Angel. That was sexist of me and I apologize. My bad, but don't let the point be lost.

steveo777 wrote:

Angel wrote:

steveo777 wrote:Yeah and somehow I think that when all these women come in here and start punching out kids like a factory that it ain't because they are Catholic and don't believe in birth control. Every one of them represents a pay raise and another anchor to the USA. We really get to watch our tax dollars at work.........for them!

I'm gonna write the I.R.S. and tell them when they get rid of all these illegal fucks, I'll start paying my taxes again!

WHOA Stevo.....there are men involved in this process too.......while I agree with what you are saying-don't blame it entirely on women...

You're right Angel. That was sexist of me and I apologize. My bad, but don't let the point be lost.

You're forgiven......but I really, really, really do enjoy catching those Mexican babies-I just wish they were here legally...the Hispanic mamas are the BEST!