Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

A federal judge has granted an injunction blocking enforcement of parts of a controversial immigration law in Arizona that is scheduled to go into effect Thursday.

U.S. District Judge Susan R. Bolton ruled that the federal government "is likely to succeed" in its challenge of the legality of one of the most controversial sections of the Arizona law.

That provision required police to "make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested" if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person is in the United States illegally. It also targets those who hire illegal immigrant laborers or knowingly transport them.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/28/ju ... 1&iref=BN1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!

Irony = The current ad at the bottom of this page reads "Tell Obama to leave Arizona alone."

This isn't over by a long shot.

If someone wants to move here illegally and stay here illegally, they should be able to legally.

Minnesota has done a great job adding thousands of Hmoung and Somoli people to it's population to mingle with the Scando's and Krauts. Other states need to help people from less fortunate countries.

CitadelGrad wrote:This isn't over by a long shot.

Considering the efficacy of the government/judiciary system, I would say you are correct. Perhaps they can slide this on the docket after they finish up that Barry Bonds perjury trial.

CitadelGrad wrote:This isn't over by a long shot.

It's not over. You're right.

But, the most controversial provisions won't be going into effect tomorrow... and they won't be going into effect until a higher court rules differently (which won't be happening for a while in all likelyhood). So, that's why I'm celebrating.

Fuck Arizona.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:This isn't over by a long shot.

It's not over. You're right.

But, the most controversial provisions won't be going into effect tomorrow... and they won't be going into effect until a higher court rules differently (which won't be happening for a while in all likelyhood). So, that's why I'm celebrating.

**** Arizona.

When Republicans use this as a campaign issue this fall and win many House and Senate seats, I believe this will then be an example of a Pyrrhic victory. Enjoy it while you can.

Skjellyfetti wrote:GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!

So, in a lawsuit that pits Ecuador, Guatemala, El Salvador, Mexico, Honduras, Columbia, Peru, Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Paraguay and the US Government against the states of Arizona, Michigan, Alabama, Florida, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia, you side with the criminals, theives, cutthroats and murderers. Not surprising.

EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY LISTED has laws which require foreigners to show their papers when requested (and every single country except America gleefully enforces those laws), yet they have the gall to sue an American state that requires the same thing.

The hypocrisy of the US government and pukes like you knows no bounds.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:This isn't over by a long shot.

It's not over. You're right.

But, the most controversial provisions won't be going into effect tomorrow... and they won't be going into effect until a higher court rules differently (which won't be happening for a while in all likelyhood). So, that's why I'm celebrating.

Fuck Arizona.

Fuck you.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!

So, in a lawsuit that pits Ecuador, Guatemala, El Salvador, Mexico, Honduras, Columbia, Peru, Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Paraguay and the US Government against the states of Arizona, Michigan, Alabama, Florida, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia, you side with the criminals, theives, cutthroats and murderers. Not surprising.

EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY LISTED has laws which require foreigners to show their papers when requested (and every single country except America gleefully enforces those laws), yet they have the gall to sue an American state that requires the same thing.

The hypocrisy of the US government and pukes like you knows no bounds.

Thank you for acknowledging that South Carolina is an independant country.

You are welcome CD.

TheDancinMonarch wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
It's not over. You're right.

But, the most controversial provisions won't be going into effect tomorrow... and they won't be going into effect until a higher court rules differently (which won't be happening for a while in all likelyhood). So, that's why I'm celebrating.

**** Arizona.

When Republicans use this as a campaign issue this fall and win many House and Senate seats, I believe this will then be an example of a Pyrrhic victory. Enjoy it while you can.

Democrats continue to employ the "we know what's best for Americans" philsophy, despite overwhelming opposition:

Exhibit A: Healthcare bill. Opposed by over 55% of Americans, but forced through by a partisan democratic house/congress/presidency.
Exhibit B: Stimulus plans. Opposed by an overwhelming majority of Americans but forced through by a partisan democratic congress/house/presidency.
Exhibit C: Expanded corporate bailout plans. Opposed by an overwhelming majority of Americans but forced through by a partisan democratic congress/house/presidency.
Exhibit D: Immigration Reform. Supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans but shot down by a parsian democratic congress/presidency/US Attorney General.

Sensing a pattern here?

Good luck in November, donks. You're going to need it.

So now the tough part of this for Obama is the "now what" part. It is a bit phyrric in that it partially wins the initial battle, but the tricky part is now how to address the whole illegal immigration part going forward. If you're going to block this, then the question becomes what is your alternative. I'm not sure I see answer coming to this before the Fall, and that's just another reason why there'll be a pretty big swing to the GOP in this election (although it'll be due much more to the ongoing economic doldrums than immigration). If at the end of it his plan is just partisan and only appears to be a stab at currying electoral favors, then it's not much of an answer. And if he just punts the problem to Congress and asks them to figure it out (ala health care and financial reform) then we're not going to have a solution anytime soon.

AZGrizFan wrote:
So, in a lawsuit that pits Ecuador, Guatemala, El Salvador, Mexico, Honduras, Columbia, Peru, Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Paraguay and the US Government against the states of Arizona, Michigan, Alabama, Florida, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia, you side with the criminals, theives, cutthroats and murderers. Not surprising.

EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY LISTED has laws which require foreigners to show their papers when requested (and every single country except America gleefully enforces those laws), yet they have the gall to sue an American state that requires the same thing.

The hypocrisy of the US government and pukes like you knows no bounds.

And we have more freedom than Ecuador, Guatemala, El Salvador, Mexico, Honduras, Columbia, Peru, Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and Paraguay. We have different standards for these sorts of things. Do you really think we should follow that list of countries' example as far as human rights, civil rights, freedom, liberty, etc.? I doubt it.

I'm not siding with thieves, cutthroats, and murders you fuck. I'm siding with legal residents and citizens of the US whose rights would be infringed upon.

AZGrizFan wrote:
EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY LISTED has laws which require foreigners to show their papers when requested (and every single country except America gleefully enforces those laws), yet they have the gall to sue an American state that requires the same thing.

I don't think it's a problem with asking foreigners for their papers, I think it's a problem of identifying who is and who isn't a US Citizen without profiling. Pretty impossible problem to solve in a "melting pot," right? That part of the discussion goes back to the "what can be used as identification" thread though.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
So, in a lawsuit that pits Ecuador, Guatemala, El Salvador, Mexico, Honduras, Columbia, Peru, Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Paraguay and the US Government against the states of Arizona, Michigan, Alabama, Florida, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia, you side with the criminals, theives, cutthroats and murderers. Not surprising.

EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY LISTED has laws which require foreigners to show their papers when requested (and every single country except America gleefully enforces those laws), yet they have the gall to sue an American state that requires the same thing.

The hypocrisy of the US government and pukes like you knows no bounds.

And we have more freedom than Ecuador, Guatemala, El Salvador, Mexico, Honduras, Columbia, Peru, Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and Paraguay. We have different standards for these sorts of things. Do you really think we should follow that list of countries' example as far as human rights, civil rights, freedom, liberty, etc.? I doubt it.

I'm not siding with thieves, cutthroats, and murders you fuck. I'm siding with legal residents and citizens of the US whose rights would be infringed upon.

Denial is a river in Egypt, pal. Walk a mile in our shoes before you so casually tell Arizona to fuck off.

And the fact that you see NO problem with countries that have massive issues with human rights, civil rights, freedom, liberty, etc., suing OUR state for some perceived slight to THEIR illegals crossing OUR border speaks VOLUMES about your personal make-up.

GannonFan wrote:So now the tough part of this for Obama is the "now what" part. It is a bit phyrric in that it partially wins the initial battle, but the tricky part is now how to address the whole illegal immigration part going forward. If you're going to block this, then the question becomes what is your alternative. I'm not sure I see answer coming to this before the Fall, and that's just another reason why there'll be a pretty big swing to the GOP in this election (although it'll be due much more to the ongoing economic doldrums than immigration). If at the end of it his plan is just partisan and only appears to be a stab at currying electoral favors, then it's not much of an answer. And if he just punts the problem to Congress and asks them to figure it out (ala health care and financial reform) then we're not going to have a solution anytime soon.

Yeah, what this guy said.

JMU DJ wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY LISTED has laws which require foreigners to show their papers when requested (and every single country except America gleefully enforces those laws), yet they have the gall to sue an American state that requires the same thing.

I don't think it's a problem with asking foreigners for their papers, I think it's a problem of identifying who is and who isn't a US Citizen without profiling. Pretty impossible problem to solve in a "melting pot," right? That part of the discussion goes back to the "what can be used as identification" thread though.

I have no problem with profiling. I get profiled in every foreign country I visit on planet earth, particularly the ones where I look different than the general population. So, you get asked for papers, you provide them, you move on. What's the big fucking deal?

GannonFan wrote:the tricky part is now how to address the whole illegal immigration part going forward. If you're going to block this, then the question becomes what is your alternative. I'm not sure I see answer coming to this before the Fall

Obama has no problem buffing up security at the border. He order 1,200 more National Guard troops down there a couple of months ago, he's doubled border security task force teams along the US-Mexico border, he's increased funding to police forces along the border, he's increased high tech equipment at the border, etc. etc. etc.

AZGrizFan wrote:I get profiled in every foreign country I visit on planet earth, particularly the ones where I look different than the general population. So, you get asked for papers, you provide them, you move on. What's the big **** deal?

Again, those countries have different standards for human rights, civil rights, freedom, etc. Our country should be above that.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

GannonFan wrote:the tricky part is now how to address the whole illegal immigration part going forward. If you're going to block this, then the question becomes what is your alternative. I'm not sure I see answer coming to this before the Fall

Obama has no problem buffing up security at the border. He order 1,200 more National Guard troops down there a couple of months ago, he's doubled border security task force teams along the US-Mexico border, he's increased funding to police forces along the border, he's increased high tech equipment at the border, etc. etc. etc.

EVERY SINGLE STEP taken AFTER Arizona's immigration law passed to get the federal government off their dead ASSES and do something about this invasion.

Obama could give a flying vertical FUCK about illegal immigrants, except to give them all amnesty so they'll vote democrat for the rest of their lives. THAT is his only political motivation here. You know it. I know it. Anyone with a brainstem knows it.

Well, on second thought then, maybe you DON'T know it.

AZGrizFan wrote:
Denial is a river in Egypt, pal. Walk a mile in our shoes before you so casually tell Arizona to **** off.

And the fact that you see NO problem with countries that have massive issues with human rights, civil rights, freedom, liberty, etc., suing OUR state for some perceived slight to THEIR illegals crossing OUR border speaks VOLUMES about your personal make-up.

I don't give a shit about those other country's lawsuits.

This is the lawsuit from the government of the United States.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:I get profiled in every foreign country I visit on planet earth, particularly the ones where I look different than the general population. So, you get asked for papers, you provide them, you move on. What's the big **** deal?

Again, those countries have different standards for human rights, civil rights, freedom, etc. Our country should be above that.

And while we're "above that", we're being invaded by 11,000,000 illegals who are breaking our FEDERAL law just by crossing the border and because we have "different standards" we just continue allowing it to happen and not do anything about it?

Jesus. It's like talking to a 1st grader here.

AZGrizFan wrote:
EVERY SINGLE STEP taken AFTER Arizona's immigration law passed to get the federal government off their dead ASSES and do something about this invasion.

Obama could give a flying vertical **** about illegal immigrants, except to give them all amnesty so they'll vote democrat for the rest of their lives. THAT is his only political motivation here. You know it. I know it. Anyone with a brainstem knows it.

Well, on second thought then, maybe you DON'T know it.

No, not AFTER Arizona's law you ignorant hick.

From March 2009:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/24/ ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Skjellyfetti wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Denial is a river in Egypt, pal. Walk a mile in our shoes before you so casually tell Arizona to **** off.

And the fact that you see NO problem with countries that have massive issues with human rights, civil rights, freedom, liberty, etc., suing OUR state for some perceived slight to THEIR illegals crossing OUR border speaks VOLUMES about your personal make-up.

I don't give a shit about those other country's lawsuits.

This is the lawsuit from the government of the United States.

The company the US is keeping speaks volumes as well.