E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSBreaking news from the AP:
A judge has blocked the most controversial sections of Arizona's new immigration law from taking effect Thursday, handing a major legal victory to opponents of the crackdown.
The law will still take effect Thursday, but without many of the provisions that angered opponents -- including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws. The judge also put on hold a part of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places.
*** UPDATE *** Per NBC's Pete Williams, here's a statement from the Justice Department:
"We believe the court ruled correctly when it prevented key provisions of SB1070 from taking effect. While we understand the frustration of Arizonans with the broken immigration system, a patchwork of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement and would ultimately be counterproductive. States can and do play a role in cooperating with the federal government in its enforcement of the immigration laws, but they must do so within our constitutional framework.
"This administration takes its responsibility to secure our borders seriously and has dedicated unprecedented resources to that effort. We will continue to work toward smarter and more effective enforcement of our laws while pressing for a comprehensive approach that provides true security and strengthens accountability and responsibility in our immigration system at the national level.
Leave a Comment:
OK...all you SB 1070 supporters who were screaming about the gall of DOJ for suing AZ, now is the time to admit that there was ample reason for the Federal government to test this law.
Looks like Jan Brewer and her 'crack' team of attorneys were no match for the DOJ!
Score: Round 1 for the 'good' guys...
The only thing this judge has ruled on is that AZ has to give the federal courts time to review the complaint by the Barry admin. She has NOT issued ANY ruling on the Constitutional merits of the law.
Stay tuned.
Wow Joe!
How observant of you... thanks for confirming my belief that you don't actually read before you spew!
Ya might want to go back and notice where I referenced 'Round 1' dumbsh!t
Just a little bit touchy today, Feisty?
"Ya might want to go back and notice where I referenced 'Round 1' dumbsh!t"
This ruling is NOT "Round 1".
This ruling is a DELAY in the start of the legal fight. Round 1 is still to come, that's why I said "stay tuned".
Thanks for confirming my belief that you don't actually think before you write!
LOL!!!
This decision was sort of a no-brainer. Even the most cursory examination of the law makes it obvious that many of its provisions are unconstitutional.
Fiesty in IL has clearly not had to live in the mess that some AZ's have to live. She has clearly not had her home invaded by criminals who want to steal, rape and possibly kill her. It's a much different situation when you are the one going through it and I for one would NEVER choose to keep someone in that situation from allowing them to defend themselves. The Federal government is not doing their jobs! Someone has to protect them! She is right...NO ONE is a match for the current and corrupt DOJ and White House. I pray Fiesty doesn't ever have to defend her American rights against this current administration....if so, good luck!
Joe and Feisty - Don't hate me for this, but from over here it sounds like you're actually agreeing with each other! Call it Round 1 or call it the delay before Round 1 - the point is, this battle is just beginning, and I can't see it ending anywhere short of the Supreme Court. Can you?
JoAnne in PA
Joe and Feisty - Don't hate me for this, but from over here it sounds like you're actually agreeing with each other! Call it Round 1 or call it the delay before Round 1 - the point is, this battle is just beginning, and I can't see it ending anywhere short of the Supreme Court. Can you?
You Know Jo, of course I can. That's why the idiot Republicans did everthing to delay Elena Kagan.
I see the annoyer and crack investagor Representative Darrell Issa is on with tamrron Hall. It would be nice if he did he job and invesigated Sheefiif Apico forracial profiling and looking people up illegaly
Shelley. Just because the situation is bad and needs addressing does not mean that states can enact unconstitutional laws. If you are willing to disregard the constitution then what are you protecting?
Shelly:
Tu eres una chica muy, muy loca!
"U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton put those controversial sections on hold until the courts resolve the issues."
Sounds like she has kicked the can, and we can look forward to the two parties taking this all the way to the...uh oh!...could that actually happen? Legal scholars?
Sure it'll happen. The people who are pushing this wedge issue won't give up until it gets there.
No Dangerfield, she didn't kick the can. She issued a temporary stay, that is the best the DOJ, and others suing could hope for at this point. There was a preliminary hearing earlier, there was not a full trial. The Judge, who by the way was recommended for appointment to the federal bench by John Kyl, and is a graduate of University of Iowa (undergraduate and law school- Go Hawks!) had several options, she could rule as a preliminary matter that the DOJ et al was not entitled to a preliminary/temporary injunction, and the law suit would continue, and AZ could enforce the law pending the eventual outcome of the full trial, or she could find that parts of the law appear to be unconstitutional, and enjoin the enforcement of those portions pending a full trial, or she could have sat back and not issued her order until after noon tomorrow and the law would go into force until either she issued a preliminary injunction/stay.
The granting of a preliminary injunction is no small matter, it is unlikely that it will be over turned in the US District Court level after a full trial, and it's doubtful the federal appellate courts will reverse it.
Hawkeyedemocrat - Thank you for so much good information about the proceedings and what is/is not expected. I have not read the injunction (yet), so I will not comment on it until I do. I am no lawyer (never professed to be one either), but it looks like the DOJ got what it wanted. Now, the trick will be to see how AZ adminsters this law with many of the more 'salient' parts tied up, pending more litigation.
With that being said, and it has been reiterated on this board, as an American citizen, why is it necessary for me to be profiled in MY OWN COUNTRY just so AZ can solve its problem with illegal immigration? I think the Court was sensitive to that as well, judging from her ruling.
It's not over yet.
Of course, give Gov Brewer a few minutes and she'll be telling everyone that this was President Obama's fault.
Like her thanking President Obama for putting up the signs close to the border and he had nothing to do with it.
Boy she's a dandy!!!!
gov.brewer is doing what the majority of her states citizens want her to do Protect the people. mabe if the federal gov would do its job it would not have come to this. but when you have the highest kidnapping rate in the country and drugs are being smuggled through your state, and your citizens are at risk of being murdered every day then somebody has to take control.If you dont live in arizona then stay out of itand if these people are here legally then they have nothing to worry about. This one thing that is this wrong with country people dont mind there own busn. If you get pulled over for a traffic violation the first thing your asked for is your I.D. We dont have mexican drug gangs comeing into our streets at night killing people so how can we judge the citizens,this is an american state,it needs to be protected and if the feds are to scared to do then get out of the damm way.
Yeah, same for George Wallace! Stay out of his state and out of his schools!
"The judge also put on hold a part of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times"
So American citizens are required to carry identification of who they are, but immigrants don't have to carry around proof that they're here legally? Unbelieveable.
Sean:
Your Tea Party logic is as twisted as a pretzel. Have you ever gone to the grocery store and forgot your wallet at home? Pisst. You didn't break the law! You are not required to carry ID at all times.
@Ron:
I'm not sure where exactly my political ideology falls, but Tea Party definitely isn't it.
But, if asked by a police officer to show proof of identity, you turn it over, correct? Isn't an immigrant supposed to do the same thing, that is, show proof of identity?
I don't carry my birth certificate to prove who I am. I carry my driver's license to show I am licensed to drive or to show that my photo looks like me and name is the same as the one on the check I write. If I don't want to show ID when shopping, I can pay cash--no ID required.
Sean:
I apologize if I misrepresented your political leanings. But I do believe that if pulled over for a traffic ticket and you forgot your ID, there are protocols in place other than going to jail. Perhaps law enforcement in Indiana is more understanding than the Phoenix Sheriff (the toughest sheriff in the civilized world.)
@Ron:
Apology accepted. I wouldn't know what those other protocols are - my only possibly problematic encounter with law enforcement, I had my license on me.
(Besides, if I was a Tea Partier, I'd could put Obama on opposite sides of the political spectrum in the same sentence, and think I was making sense.)
Carry papers? This reeks of totalitarianism. Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin and their ilk would be so proud.
I knew a woman who lived in Communest East Germany and she had to be in possession of her papers at all times. If she "forgot" those papers she would go to jail until her "true identity" could be found. She would have been questioned about her motives for not carrying her identification and what she was up to.
Another thing to note....Counterfeiters are really good at making fake papers to show authorities. Some actually could be good enough to fool the average cop. So what is to keep someone from providing millions of illegals with fake papers as they pour accross our borders in hoards as surely some seem to think they do.
Sean
I like your sense of humor.
It depends on the circumstances, Sean.
Does the officer have a reasonable suspicion that you have committed a crime? Are you operating a motor vehicle?
If you answered "no" to both of those questions, then, no, you are under no obligation to comply and if you do not have, say, a driver's license on your person, you are not violating any laws.
It depends on the circumstances, Sean.
Does the officer have a reasonable suspicion that you have committed a crime? Are you operating a motor vehicle?
If you answered "no" to both of those questions, then, no, you are under no obligation to comply and if you do not have, say, a driver's license on your person, you are not violating any laws.
All points well noted.
A small point of clarification: the first thought that came to mind in terms of carrying papers were "green cards".
Adler-273784
Another thing to note....Counterfeiters are really good at making fake papers to show authorities. Some actually could be good enough to fool the average cop. So what is to keep someone from providing millions of illegals with fake papers as they pour across our borders in hoards as surely some seem to think they do.
You mean like that fake birth certificate of President Obama the immigrant, Orly Taitz, put on line? If Orly Taitz has a fake drivers license and has committed a crime, ICE can handle her. They can get real finger prints and expose her as an illegal too.
What goes around comes back around.
Sean... If a police officer randomly asks you to identify yourself, you can tell him to go pi$$ up a rope. But if he has reasonable suspicion to believe that criminal activity is afoot and that you are a part of it, then he can require identification. Lawyers call that a "Terry" stop, derived from the name of the US SCt opinion that approved it.
It is not against the law for the target of a Terry stop to tell the policeman to go pi$$ up a rope, but if the Terry circumstances are present, such a response will certainly complicate the subject's detention. That is a thin line, but it recognizes the distinction between unjustified interference with our right of free movement and the justified need to investigate a possible crime in progress.
The issue raised in the Arizona law is that might approve stops -- interference with a person's right of free movement-- that are not justified by reasonable suspicion, if the suspicion is generated only by the policeman's opinion that the target merely looks like someone who is an illegal entrant.
This is to protect innocent law-abiding citizens from interference with their right to be left alone. That seems to be the mantra of the Tea Party and the purported libertarians, but consistency is not one of their virtues.
My greatest fear is the ignorance of some police officers. A couple of years ago, my friend and I were on our way to choir practice one evening. We were just driving along, when suddenly the lights of a police car were behind us. This was just 2 plain, middle-aged women in an ordinary vehicle. Apparently, this officer believed my friend had not completely stopped at a stop sign over a mile back - it was, literally, one mile before he bothered to turn his lights on (we went back and measured it). Anyway, unfortunately for us, my friend had forgotten and left her driver's license in her car at the hospital where she was a nurse. I had picked her up from work, but didn't feel well and had her drive. Getting to the point, the cop was relatively new (a little over a year) on the job and couldn't figure out how to find her in the system by using his laptop. Therefore, my friend was handcuffed in the middle of town, put in the backseat of a cruiser, and driven to jail. I broke more laws than she ever had driving across Atlanta to the hospital to get her driver's license. Even though I was back with her license before she was fully booked, she spent 6 hours in jail for not having her ID. Of course, once it got to court, the case was totally thrown out and the cop rather severely scolded by the judge. I mean, it was obvious we were just a couple of middle-aged white women driving in a nice part of town in a nice vehicle. This guy was one of those power-crazy cops who can't admit he made a mistake or give someone a break - in another incident where I was at a random traffic stop after going to the drugstore late at night and forgetting my driver's license, they just waved me on through and said don't do it again.
If you give police as much power and personal discretion as provided by SB1070, I fear for anyone who lives in Arizona, especially people of color. This bill is rife with opportunity for abuse and is well outside the boundaries of the constitution as pertains to what states can and can't do...this is a can't. Jan Brewer and Sharon Angle should join with Sarah Palin (use some of her speaking engagement money) and found a "Rest and Relaxation" Spa Getaway for tea party women who need to get back in touch with reality.
What law requires citizens to carry papers? No such law exists. If police asks for ID, as others have said you can tell him no, and walk away. If you are driving most (if not all) state laws require you to have your license on you when driving. If you are driving, or fishing or hunting, or doing any activity that requires a license and the proper authority (police, Dept. of Natural Resources employee) requests to see your license you would be required to provide your license/permit. However, a police officer can't randomly stop drivers without probable cause to check drivers licenses (I don't know-or really care -about the protocol for checking fishing/hunting licenses)
When you are hired for a job, federal law requires the employer to verify the employee's ability to legally work. This is done by requiring proper identification (social security card, birth certificate, or a green card for a resident alien). A resident alien isn't required to carry their green card with them at all times, although many may do so. A good friend of mine was a resident alien for a couple decades before becoming a citizen. She had a state issued drivers license, and used her green card only when she applied for a job.
Too often those who are vehemently anti illegal immigration claim that citizens are required to have their proof of ID on them, so illegals are receiving special treatment. This simply is false, the laws that require a license (driving, hunting, fishing, etc) apply to all people engaging in that activity. And federal law requires all employers to verify the employee is legally eligible to work.
Until governmental authorities start prosecuting people (and corporations) who hire people who can not legally work (not all people who can't legally work are in the country illegally, they could have a valid student visa, etc.) instead of just going after the people who work illegally I for one will side with the immigrant.
Sean. your right I know if you get pulled over and dont have an Id of somekind you get a ticket and that ticket states that you will have to go to court and show that you are who say you are. these people that are crying about going to get ice cream and didn;t bring an Id. obviously did not read the bill. just like obama passeing judgement before he read the bill. he thinks our policemen are stupid just like his beer summit after calling those policemen stupid for makeing the professor show Id.
I didn't mean to complain about my friend getting in trouble for not having a license on her. A ticket is the norm, she deserved a ticket - not 6 hours in Dekalb County, GA jail. Even the guy's sergeant couldn't believe he wanted to take her to jail and the judge quizzed the cop more than my friend and apologized to her for the officer's over-zealous reaction to a missing driver's license (we had proof of insurance, it was in the car)- and, no, she didn't say anything bad, she was overly polite - she was a lot nicer than I would have been. I was trying to equate the situation to what could possibly happen in Arizona when the segment of the police force (and there always is one) that is power-crazy starts "enforcing" this law.
If I'm walking down the street, I don't have to have ID. If asked by a cop for ID I won't produce it even if I have it. I won't pander to an abuse of power. This law just provides too much opportunity for abuse and is outside of the state's perview according to the Constitution. The states have a number of rights, but the border between Mexico and the U.S. at Arizona is actually the border between the U.S. and Mexico and, therefore, it is up to the U.S. - not Arizona - to manage that border no matter how bad the situation has become. There will eventually be a solution, but this is not it and the longer the Republicans slow down Congress the longer it will take to get to the part of the agenda regarding immigration reform.
Ill bet if the rancher that was killed by the border jumpers was your father you would feel differently. be honest and tell me what you think.
US citizens are not required to carry any identification unless they are doing something that requires a license (like driving a car). You are completely free to walk in any neighborhood in this country without a scrap of ID - it is your right as a US citizen. So, you are wrong - US citizens are NOT required to carry papers. That's part of the problem with the AZ law - they will eventually detain a US citizen for not having ID and then the ACLU will sue the state into bankruptcy.
I have a problem with the lack of editing on this site. I have found many typos in these articles.
And yes, AZ has taken us back in regards to race relations. America is not America under the guise of good ol boy patriotism.
I think the focus is on posting articles as fast a possible at the expense of an occasional typo.
PS. One of the co-authors, Kris Kabach, is running for Secretary of the State of Kansas. No end to the crazy.
and on other news, the AR Republican Party is up with their official platform today - Also hosts a discompassionate stance on immigration. FR, you might highlight that little gemstone in first thoughts tomorrow,...
Republicans aren't really FOR anything (except power); but they sure the hell are against a host and bevy of things! Can you feel the hate now? It's all those pesky humans preventing them from really ACHIEVING the American dream. That's the 'ticket'!
There is no question that parts of that law needed to be blocked, pending further review. This allows time for cooler heads to prevail, and maybe come up with an answer to the border that might be of some real value. The problem with this ruling, is the right wing nuts, instead of being willing to sit down and come up with a real solution to this problem, will use it as political fodder to claim that the Democratic leadership is soft on illegal immigration. They have an obligation too, in being willing to start hitting businesses that make a practice of hiring illegals to be levied with real fines that are punishing enough that it is no longer worth it to those companies to engage in the practice. And, the border states must be assisted with border protection. Only then, will we solve the problem.
The judge summed it up pretty well. The feds trump the state. This is what the case was all about.
Interestingly though, In regards to equal protection under the law she added
"There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law)," Bolton ruled. "By enforcing this statute, Arizona would impose a 'distinct, unusual and extraordinary' burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose."
Good job for the DOJ. Now Congress with the President pushing them needs to sit down as rational adults and solve this problem. As they are scared to do it before the elections, I can only hope that the ones that become lame ducks can address this between November 4th and Jan. 2011. Surely they can vote their conscience and make the hard choices before their replacements come in.
As I said before my lawyering skills aren’t up to snuff but the appeal by either side is pretty much a given and something I would expect. Delving into my prognosticating skills I wonder how long its going to take for some Yahoo to jump up here and swear that Arizona is going to secede or some other silly mess
This is great news! As an American of Mexican descent, I find it incredibly disappointing that most of my fellow countrymen don't take offense to the profiling that this law allows. Yes, the immigration system is broken and the US has every right to govern its borders, but that does not mean that I should be profiled in my own country.
Enrique-528883
I'm sorry to say this but this IS america and for years every ethnic group has been profiled. in some places i'm profiled because i'm driving a car while being black. what hispanics should do is show up at the capital in AZ, with out ID and get arrested. the other night i heard this was going to be the plan for tomorrow, you should go and participate. make your voice heard.
Jeff, I were in AZ I would participate. From Chicago, I can only offer encouragement to those in AZ who oppose this hateful law.
Let's just forget that the federal law requires all aliens to carry their papers at all times. It's just a silly old law, right?
Also, federal law allows that federal officials can stop anybody, at any time, without cause and ask about their immigration status. AZ's law is much stricter in that regard. AZ law says that if you're detained for another crime only then coulld they ask about immigration.
If the federal government won't do their job, when is some CITIZEN of the US going to sue the fed when one of these illegals murders, rapes, or robs them?
Where do we draw the line? I happen to have brown skin (thanks to the summertime sun), brown eyes and black hair. How would an officer in AZ know that I am a US born citizen? I proudly carry my US passport with me whenever I travel abroad, but I should not have to have it on my person in my own country.
Enrique-528883
Your right you should not have to have your pass port. but i say just like years ago when cops would stop me and ask if the car i'm driving is mine. then i did not keep the bill of sale, you should not have to keep your pass port on you.
Enrique - I think that your assessment is correct. The fact is that LEOs CANNOT tell if you are an American citizen or not by how you look. The mere fact that the AZ is requiring American Citizens - in their OWN country - to prove their citizenship is ludicrous.
I have posted this before, and I'll post it again - the AZ legislature does NOT have the right - or my permission - to use MY rights as a Citizen of the United States to solve THEIR immigration problem.
I guess that GOPer Congressman, Orange Man, would also have a problem with being stopped. Do Congressmen auto tags qualify as ID?
Three cheers for the Obama DOJ and the AZ judge who based her decision on law. I'm no lawyer but even I could see the holes in the AZ bill. I firmly believe that those who support the bill, support the idea of the bill with little understanding of its impact on legal citizens regardless of their skin color.
I agree with you, Jody. Supporters and opponents of this bill agree that the federal government needs to do something about our immigration system. Immigration has always been a controversial issue in our country. Any solution to fixing immigration should not include provisions that violate the rights of American citizens and legal residents.
Enrique's point is exactly the point that the Righties miss. If THEY were the ones who were going to be stopped and asked for ID, and if THEY were legal citizens, are we to believe that the Righties would still support this law. Come on, people, there are better ways to do this.
Those on the Right would scream that this is big government abusing its powers. I would actually agree with them.
Well one GOP lawmaker questions judges authority. I was waiting for someone to complain and it took them only oh....2 seconds!
Winning a battle is not winning the war. I think Anna Molly is right, when it gets to the Supreme Court, the conservatives have the advantage. I simply hate it that it is more about political ideology than interpreting the law. But let's wait and see what happens.
You're right, Ron and Anna Molly. I am just glad to see the judge put a hold on part of it for further review.
So much misunderstanding. The judge could not possibly have "put on hold a part of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times", because there is no such requirement in the AZ law. Federal immigration laws do make such a requirement, but the AZ law does not.
Advocatus Diaboli
What Federal law requires non-American citizens to carry ID at all time? Please cite the actual statute. I won't hold my breath while you search, because there is no such statute. Just as Italian (British Irish, et cetera) law does not require me to have my passport or ID on me at all times while I am visiting their country, neither does US law require non-citizens to carry ID, or any papers on them.
One of the portions of the law the Judge granted the preliminary injunction is the part referred to in the media as the "papers please" portion. The law required Arizona law enforcement to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested who the law enforcement official believes may be an illegal immigrant. The law went so far as to allow private citizens to sue law enforcement (or other governmental agencies) if they believe the law enforcement officials aren't enforcing the law. This is why most of Arizona's law enforcement opposed the law.
Hawkeye: in response to your question, it is the Immigration and Naturalization Act.
It depends on the circumstances, Sean.
Does the officer have a reasonable suspicion that you have committed a crime? Are you operating a motor vehicle?
If you answered "no" to both of those questions, then, no, you are under no obligation to comply and if you do not have, say, a driver's license on your person, you are not violating any laws.
The only good that can come out of this is it shows how terrible our Immigration Rules are. I am a conservative, and did not exactly like the merit of this proposal. However, I am for a cohesive immigration policy that somehow lessens the burden of legal tax-payers. Those that are here illegally need to be dealt with. They are called illegals for a reason. The companies that create ways to entice illegals to come over, need to be dealt with.
I guess the Arizona law, while flawed and borderline racist, may have a end result of a good thing. If anything, the Arizona Governor and the Congressional Members of the state of Arizona need to be at least commended for taking on such a monumental task while our Federal Government for years have talked about reform but was too worried about getting re-elected to do anything about it. People may not like how the government officers acted for Arizona but at least they are attempting to fix a very serious and costly problem facing this country.
This is not the end of the story but the beginning.
Indeed. This case will definitely make it to the Supreme Court, without question.
Just for laughs, I googled Judge Susan Bolton. Judge Bolton was nominated for the U. S. District Court by President Clinton on the recommendation of JOHN KYL!!!! LMAO!!!! Right about now, I'll bet ol' Kyl doesn't know whether to sh!! or go blind!!
John Kyl! That is hysterical!
Actually he IS going blind from jerking the good citizens of my state around for so long. Hopefully we can replace this corporate shill in the next election. Sadly we do not have any Democrat with the kahunas to take him on.
Who is next? Will we reinstate lynch mobs against the Asians or African-Americans among us because they look "different"? Are we going back to the bad old days of an US vs THEM mentality. In the past it was the Chinese, the Irish, Mormons, Jews, you name it and somebody was persecuted. America was founded by people who were persecuted by people in Europe. America offers everyone an opportunity today just as it did for our ancestors. Mine came here in the late 1500s and from then on. We left Europe partially for religious reasons and partially for political reasons. We came to America to be free to live and let live, to worship as we please and be left alone to do it. Unfortunately some (sad to say even some of my ancestors) decided that others weren't welcome. Did the Native Americans welcome Europeans with open arms? Some did but most did not.
Think too that we must be humane but in so doing must make it clear that our laws are not to be violated. Would any of those griping about illegal aliens want to pay $5 for a head of iceberg lettuce or $10 for a small box of strawberries because the growers had to pay citizens who won't work for low wages, especially the back breaking work those people do. There are plenty of legal aliens to do the work, that's true, but we also can't just deport millions of people which would upset our already stressed economy let alone stir up families and deprive many wealthy people of cheap labor as gardeners, maids, cooks etc. This is a tough issue.
The issue of illegal immigration was made worse when Ronald Reagan gave amnesty to millions of illegals rather than face the problem head on. Had we handled the problem in the 80s we wouldn't have the problems we have today. Millions who have come since then wouldn't be here and those who were here would have paid the price for violating our laws. Sensible legislation can be passed and signed that will make illegals pay a fine and at the same time punish those who hire them. It will keep families together and those who are deported it is done humanely. Equal treatment must be made to all who are here illegally regardless where they are from. Even if they are from England, Iraq, Canada, China, Russia or anywhere else all illegals should be treated the same with regard to immigration status.
Adler, last night I saw the wife of the rancher that was murdered by illegals in Mar. Ask her how she feels about keeping the families of illegals together. and, all of you who think things are just perfect, go pitch your tent on the border. If you come back alive, tell us how it was !
Thats right....were "racist" because we want people here LEGALLY...
If liberals had their way we would have open borders so everyone can come here....
Someday your dreams may come true and were going to be France or Greece..... I hope you love progressivism as much then when were completely broke.
Lock the borders up so NO ONE can come here illegally. If someone does sneak in throw their ass in jail and let them rot..... Im sick of illegals coming here and stealing MY country from me....
Dirt....
Libs could care less about the rnacher that died..... he was probably a conservative and not a new potential liberal voter.
All this crap that Barry is doing is nothing more than creating a new voting bloc for himself.....
Im telling you Barry the illegitimate president is just waiting for the time to be right and he is going to bypass Congress and make every illegal alien a citizen (about early 2012) once he realizes that the country that he hates (America) hates him just as much...if not more.
I agree that the US has every right to govern its borders. As a sovereign nation, we have the authority to determine who comes into our country. Immigration, legal and illegal, has been and will always be a controversial issue. As a US born citizen, I should not be profiled in my own country. Any American who claims to be a supporter of freedom and less government should not support the profiling of Americans citizens.
Hi Larry!
Firstly, your "illegitimate president" comment identifies you as a birther, which means you are incapable of thinking rationally; therefore, it is probably pointless to engage you in debate but I just can't resist.
"If liberals had their way we would have open borders so everyone can come here....Someday your dreams may come true and were going to be France or Greece....."
France and Greece do not have open borders.
"Im sick of illegals coming here and stealing MY country from me...."
It's not YOUR country, its OUR country. That includes those bordering on parinoid schizophrenic such as the looney tune lefties that thinks 911 was an inside job and the nut ball righties that think Obama wasn't born in the US. Thankfully OUR country also includes the sane which have political views of all kinds.
...but more to the point, what would all of the people from the Mandan Village Louis and Clark camped at in the winter of 1804-1805 say about all of the settlers that came to places like Minot? I'm guessing they might say, "Im sick of illegals coming here and stealing MY country from me".
Excuse me Charles....but didn't Reagan have something to do with that.
Excellent post, Charles Arlington Heights, Ill: Poor Larry claims that he went to Liberty University, which may well be his problem with finding empirical data to support his position.
Larry, Minot, N.D.
Dirt....
Im telling you Barry the illegitimate president is just waiting for the time to be right and he is going to bypass Congress and make every illegal alien a citizen (about early 2012) once he realizes that the country that he hates (America) hates him just as much...if not more.
so your saying PRESIDENT OBAMA is going to give amisty to the illegalls? No i can let you know Pres will not do that. Reagan did that and it did not work and i don't think Reagan did it for the reasons you say Obama is going to do it. why reagan did it will never be known. when has the president said this, you must be following the FOX new orgization again.
I must as you what makes PRESIDENT OBAMA a illegitimate president ?
what in the world are you talking about him hating his counrty. you said that once he realizes that the country that he hates (America) hates him just as much...if not more. i sorry to tell you this but most american don't like his policys but as far as liking him most people really like the guy, the hate you are talking about, is you self. i can see that in your post. as my mother use to say, only people who talk of hate are the ones who hate.
I'm sorry Charles I meant to type Larry's name and not yours.
I noticed it after the time ran out for me to correct it. Sorry.
Larry you said -Thats right....were "racist" because we want people here LEGALLY...
Lock the borders up so NO ONE can come here illegally. If someone does sneak in throw their ass in jail and let them rot..... Im sick of illegals coming here and stealing MY country from me....
________________________________________________________________________________
I will make a generalization about you due to my reading of your other posts, but I get the sense that you don't mind if Canadians or Europeans enter illegally or stay past their visas. I sense your main concern is against people of color ie. Latinos. As you have said previously that you aren't against legal immigration then surely you would support allowing more legal immigration into our country from Mexico, Latin America etc.
Surely if they are doing work here that americans will not do and corporations continue to hire and entice them to come then there is a need for them. You would call that Supply and demand right? So I'm sure you are supportive of comprehensive immigration reform to allow for guest workers or some other type of legalization since there is such a high demand for their labor.
As many of these people work in the fields and service industries that many americans will not work, who would do this work? Do you realize how much of an economic impact deporting them would cause? Don't you think if they all just went away it would harm our economy? How would a mass deporation program work, who would pay for it?
I'm sure you are prone to answer that these people take our state services and give nothing in return. They are lazy and they don't pay taxes. Have you ever tasselled corn, or picked fruit the only way to support yourself is by busting your ass since you are paid by the lbs. you pick?
Wanted to share a couple posts on impacts of illegal immigration. Notice the PROS and CONS.
Illegal Immigration affects
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38303952/ns/politics-the_new_york_times/
Q&A: Illegal Immigrants and the U.S. Economy
by Adam Davidson
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5312900
Illegal immigrants seem to have very little impact on unemployment rates. Undocumented workers certainly do take jobs that would otherwise go to legal workers. But undocumented workers also create demand that leads to new jobs. They buy food and cars and cell phones, they get haircuts and go to restaurants. On average, there is close to no net impact on the unemployment rate.
Q: How do illegal immigrants affect the overall U.S. economy?
Illegal immigration has both negative and positive impacts on different parts of the economy. As noted above, wages for low-skilled workers go down. But that means the rest of America benefits by paying lower prices for things like restaurant meals, agricultural produce and construction.
Effect of Immigration on Jobs, Wages Is Difficult for Economists to Nail Down
By Nell Henderson
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401686.html
The nation's 34 million immigrants also collectively pay more in taxes than they consume in public services and benefits, according to a National Research Council study. A high proportion of them work and pay federal, state and local taxes. Many return to their home countries before retirement and never claim Social Security payments or Medicare coverage.
Dateline NBC had a story about migrant workers on July 18th it was interesting to see the challenges these people go through to make our economy thrive. I would welcome anyone who sees these people as lazy or criminals to take a look at it.
Still can see portions posted here.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38312193/ns/dateline_nbc/
Larry Minot ND - Crickets
Surely if they are doing work here that americans will not do and corporations continue to hire and entice them to come then there is a need for them. You would call that Supply and demand right? So I'm sure you are supportive of comprehensive immigration reform to allow for guest workers or some other type of legalization since there is such a high demand for their labor.
....who would do this work? Do you realize how much of an economic impact deporting them would cause? Don't you think if they all just went away it would harm our economy? How would a mass deporation program work, who would pay for it?
I didn't really expect an answer from you, Larry.
To all those who claim liberals don't care when an illegal alien murders or rapes someone you are nuts. I and every liberal I know cares about people regardless of their political ideology. Years ago my best friend from high school was murdered (by a many generation US citizen), I understand the pain of violent crime. But the idea that all, let alone a large percent of illegal immigrants are murdering and raping people while in the US illegally is false. Anyone regardless of citizenship who commits a violent crime should be held responsible, but to claim support for the AZ law based upon the fact that illegal aliens have committed heinous offenses is disingenuous.
Until the GOP supports strong criminal sanctions against employers of people who do not have the legal right to work in the US, all their anti-illegal immigrantion talk will be viewed by many as racist. Hold the couple who hire the illegal immigrant as a nanny or gardner, responsible to the full extent of the law, and construction companies and packing plants legally responsible with jail and enormous fines for hiring people who can not legally work in the US, and you will see a huge drop in the number of illegal immigrants in the US. The overwhelming number of illegal immigrants come to the US to work, if they aren't able to find employment they do (and will) return home. The fact is that since the beginning of the recession in 2007 the number of illegal immigrants who returned to their home country was at its highest level ever.
Illegal immigration is a problem, but the reality is that according to FBI statistics San Diego, El Paso, Austin and Phoenix are the safest big cities in the US. Is there crime there? Of course. Is crime committed by illegal aliens? Of course, and it is also committed by privileged youth, white drug addicts, etc. One of the many problems with illegal immigration is the US employers (be they families employing nannies, house keepers, gardeners, or the packing industry) drive pay down through employment of illegal immigrants. And those that employee illegal immigrants in their homes fail to pay FICA and withhold income taxes, causing a loss to the treasury. There are real problems with illegal immigration, but it isn't being addressed honestly.
Several states already have MOUs with the federal to assist in enforcing immigration. Does this ruling mean that those MOUs are invalid?
I bet Jan Brewster's knickers are in a twist right now. ha ha ha!!
Ah, yes- a good acitvist judge is hard to find.
(uness the activism is on behalf of the right wing)
Sorry folks but all this legal wrangling does not address the core problem, people are here illegally and are continuing to come here illegally, no matter what your opinion is on the matter the disregard for the laws of our country is wrong, it has also become all too common place to try and justify that disregard, you really can't because where does it end? Should we just make it criminal to ask anyone anything? This problem will be allowed to fester until people have too try and take care of it themselves, it already has, then what?
Police do not have the right to question people without probably cause. It is not criminal for a police officer to stop someone and ask them questions, but if they lack probably cause for the stop the person has the right to walk away, and if the police arrests them for refusing to answer their questions, when they lacked probably cause when they were asking the question the arrest, and any evidence obtained as a result will be suppressed (thrown out of court).
This law did nothing to address the problem either, it was/is a joke. Read it if someone goes to a Home Depot in AZ to obtain inexpensive and illegal labor they will only be charged with a crime if they block traffic doing so, but the illegal worker is charged with a crime if the citizen blocks traffic, and for attempting to (or succeeding in) perform day laborer work. The fact that the AZ law on its face does not treat both the Illegal alien and the AZ citizen employing the illegal the same shows AZ wasn't serious about addressing the problem!
I'm sorry, but when did we as americans lose our identities?- i.e. state issued id, Drivers License, passport, etc... If you cannot prove who you are and don't have amnesia, you should have no trouble - as noted in earlier posts fake id's or whatever - providing some form of ID. What bleeding heart liberals fail to notice is the drain on local and state agencies, not to mention the requirement to provide an interpreter if needed. The whole point of AZ's law was to protect the citizens of AZ as well as the rest of the USA. What an inconvenience for someone to show id - and if you forgot it at least provide a SS#. If you aren't here legally then YOU DON"T BELONG HERE! Everyone who doesn't like this law should visit another country, say Mexico and see how far you will get without identification - you had better have something or you will be detained.
Scott:
You make some sense but I wonder how Americans would react if their state and local law enforcment personnel just started making it a habit to stop folks walking down the street, asking what they were doing in the area and asked for some proof of ID. Can you imagine that happening to doctors as they enter a hospital or lawyers walking to their offices or any number of persons as they made their way to work or about town. The state and local communities would have more law suits on their hands then they could shake a stick at for stopping people without cause. The lawyers would especially have a field day and most likely would also ask for the state or community to reimburse them for the time they lost on their jobs while being detained by the police officer. Sure, we all have some type of ID, and its not a question of having proper IDs. But the difference to U.S. citizens including Hispanic ciitzens is that they do not want to be stopped or detained by police officers without cause. Or does anyone who does not look Hispanic get a pass on that type of inconvienence.
Why is it Scott that people just can't be honest and say, yes, we want Hispanics in Arizona checked out?
Sorry about the typo; should read...
I see the annoyer and crack investigator Representative Darrell Issa is on with tTamrron Hall. It would be nice if he did he job and invesigated AZ Sheriff Arpaio for racial profiling people illegaly.
The whole racial profiling deal is out of control, if it looks like a duck, quakes like a duck, it's probably a duck ok, and if your not sure you need to check it's papers to make sure, oh but it would be wrong to ask the duck to carry ID wouldn't it? Ridiculous.
w bush -
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it IS a duck. There is nothing to be unsure about and there is no need to checks the ducks papers. Just immediately deport the duck.
But what does an illegal alien look and sound like? That question is not so simple and is where your metaphor breaks down. It is a subjective judgment just asking for power to be abused and the rights of legal residents to by infringed upon.
To expand on my earlier point, it is FEDERAL law, not AZ law, that requires aliens to carry papers. Per the United States Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA): "Every alien, eighteen years if age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d). Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both."
Also, have any of you done much foreign travel? Did you abide by the rules and carry your passport or visa? Were you offended at having to do so, or did you accept it as a reasonable requirement for being in a country in which you are not a citizen?
Those who are so concerned should actually read both the INA and the AZ law (SB 1070). Forget about listening to Keith Olbermann.
Furthermore, there is really nothing staggering about Judge Bolton's decision enjoining some of the provisions of AZ's SB 1070, subject to further litigation. Aliens are still required by Federal law to carry papers at all times, and state and local officials still have the authority to assist in enforcing such law.
Well said.
Thank you for presenting the facts.
Requiring carrying of 'papers' is not that stringent of a rule; there are very few times that I, or any other adult citizen that I know, are not in possession of ID. Even students at every local high school are required to carry identification.