Federal Judge Blocks Part of Arizona Immigration Bill

[AZGrizFan]

Section 3 - Treason

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

sounds like Obama fits the bill here.

[Skjellyfetti]

As the other poster pointed out, that just ignores the big elephant in the room. 20M illegals in the country and the only response so far is to out a few more guards on the border and increase funding? And strangely, it took Arizona passing this law just to get the Feds to do that much.

Obama was doing it more than a year before the Arizona law. I posted an article from March 2009 addressing the measures they were taking.

[AZGrizFan]

but, we have to deport people within the bounds of the law and the standards upon which we stand as a country. We can't sacrifice them in order to round up more illegals. You obviously disagree and that's fine. But, I'm glad the courts are siding with me.

Interesting that you would use THAT illogical argument. The majority of this COUNTRY agrees with ME, not you. But in the Donks "holier than thou" approach to governing, the minority is just CERTAIN they know what's best for the majority.

And those 20,000,000 ALL broke the law. Get them the fuck OUT.

Let me know how that philosophy works out for you in November come election-time.

[AZGrizFan]

As the other poster pointed out, that just ignores the big elephant in the room. 20M illegals in the country and the only response so far is to out a few more guards on the border and increase funding? And strangely, it took Arizona passing this law just to get the Feds to do that much.

Obama was doing it more than a year before the Arizona law. I posted an article from March 2009 addressing the measures they were taking.

measures that are akin to fiddling while Rome burns....but I wouldn't expect a koolaid drinker to understand or acknowledge that obvious fact.

[Skjellyfetti]

What part of illegal am I missing?

Nothing. Illegal is still illegal... nothing has changed.

What part of reasonable suspicion for law enforcement is wrong?

It would infringe upon the rights of people that "look" Mexican or Guatemalan but are US citizens.

What would happen to you if you attempted to illegally immigrate to those countries?

If you are white and from a wealthy country... you'd be shipped off. If you're poor and brown you'd probably be beaten, thrown in a basement for a few weeks until you're piled into a pickup to be taken back to your country of origin. I don't think we should follow those countries' immigration policies.

Why are we supposed to be above securing our borders and insuring the safety of our populace?

We're not above it. At all. As I posted, Obama was beefing up security at our border almost immediately after he became President. He has no problem doing it.....

[Skjellyfetti]

Interesting that you would use THAT illogical argument. The majority of this COUNTRY agrees with ME, not you. But in the Donks "holier than thou" approach to governing, the minority is just CERTAIN they know what's best for the majority.

The majority doesn't matter on civil rights or minority rights. That's why the courts end up ruling on them.... so the majority can't infringe on others' rights.

[GannonFan]

Come on, you can't mean that seriously? It's hard to believe that we are really doing a good job of enforcing immigration laws when you see so many interviews with illegals here in this country, many for decades and multiple generations, making good livings and getting good education.

If we deport 200k a year (and I don't doubt that, I'm sure we do), considering we have maybe 20M people here illegally, that means that we only enforce immigration laws to the tune of 1% deportment. Heck, if I wanted to enter the US illegally and I knew I would have a 99% chance of not being kicked out, I'd do it too.

No, you're bad at math.

We deport ~200,000 every year. There are ~500,000 illegals that enter the country every year (this number is hard to pin down... but, that's the first answer I found).

That's 40% deportment.

You use the figure of 20,000,000... that's built up from decades of immigration. It doesn't make sense to use a figure from one year of deportment vs. decades of immigration. Obviously there is a difference between the amount that come in and the amount that are ultimately deported....... but, we have to deport people within the bounds of the law and the standards upon which we stand as a country. We can't sacrifice them in order to round up more illegals. You obviously disagree and that's fine. But, I'm glad the courts are siding with me.

Why does it not make sense to use the figure of total illegals in the US? At the end of the day, they are, as the term implies, here illegally. It makes perfect sense to use that number since deportment is used to deport anyone here illegally, not just the people who came here in the past year, as your math suggestion implies. I'm pretty sure some of the 200k deported last year had entered the country sometime before last year. Your math purposely ignores the 20M who are here - that's just a creative stat, not a useful one.

I understand the problems with trying to round up all of them and I agree that it is both impossible to do and unwise to do. But let's not sugarcoat this - you talk about the bounds of the law and the standards of the country, but by those same laws and standards people here illegally are breaking those laws and standards. And at the end of the day, there needs to be a real solution to this - just stopping Arizona from implementing their law does nothing in that regard.

[ASUG8]

Interesting that you would use THAT illogical argument. The majority of this COUNTRY agrees with ME, not you. But in the Donks "holier than thou" approach to governing, the minority is just CERTAIN they know what's best for the majority.

The majority doesn't matter on civil rights or minority rights. That's why the courts end up ruling on them.... so the majority can't infringe on others' rights.

We'll all likely be dead or close to it by then, but I wonder what your thoughts about this matter would be in 2050 when it's projected that whites in America will be a minority........
And before you say it, I'm not making this a racial issue - if we have Anglos here illegally they need to get legal or get out also. It just happens that the "brown" people you mention are the majority of the issue right now.

[Skjellyfetti]

The majority doesn't matter on civil rights or minority rights. That's why the courts end up ruling on them.... so the majority can't infringe on others' rights.

We'll all likely be dead or close to it by then, but I wonder what your thoughts about this matter would be in 2050 when it's projected that whites in America will be a minority........
And before you say it, I'm not making this a racial issue - if we have Anglos here illegally they need to get legal or get out also. It just happens that the "brown" people you mention are the majority of the issue right now.[/quote]

Why would anything change for me when whites are a minority?

And, it will be a lot longer until whites are an actual minority. There supposed to be more nonwhites than whites in 2050 but there will still be more whites than any other race.... so whites would still be the majority and blacks, latinos, asians, etc. will remain minorities.

[citdog]

the end game of the leftist agenda regarding immigration is the North American Union.

[LeadBolt]

What part of illegal am I missing?

Nothing. Illegal is still illegal... nothing has changed.
Except the ability/will to enforce the law.

What part of reasonable suspicion for law enforcement is wrong?

It would infringe upon the rights of people that "look" Mexican or Guatemalan but are US citizens.

I just returned from a mission trip to Romania, where I had to produce my passport several times, I didn't take that as an infringement of my rights, as much as prudent action by Romanians.

What would happen to you if you attempted to illegally immigrate to those countries?

If you are white and from a wealthy country... you'd be shipped off. If you're poor and brown you'd probably be beaten, thrown in a basement for a few weeks until you're piled into a pickup to be taken back to your country of origin. I don't think we should follow those countries' immigration policies.
I wouldn't advocate for enforcing their policies, just ours. The point is ours are more just and humane and we don't enforce them.

Why are we supposed to be above securing our borders and insuring the safety of our populace?

We're not above it. At all. As I posted, Obama was beefing up security at our border almost immediately after he became President. He has no problem doing it.....

Maybe not, but he does seem to have a problem with doing it effectively

[Skjellyfetti]

I just returned from a mission trip to Romania, where I had to produce my passport several times, I didn't take that as an infringement of my rights, as much as prudent action by Romanians.

Did they ask to see your passport because you were white?

Maybe not, but he does seem to have a problem with doing it effectively

Your other points seem to fit in this one and I don't feel like quoting the other ones, so I'll respond to this one. We do enforce our immigration laws..... to the extent our Constitution allows us to. There are more effective ways we could enforce our immigration laws... but they would infringe upon rights of citizens of this country... so we simply can't. We have to stay within the boundaries laid out legally.

[LeadBolt]

the end game of the leftist agenda regarding immigration is the North American Union.

Certainly the Canadians wouldn't fall for that....

[AZGrizFan]

Your other points seem to fit in this one and I don't feel like quoting the other ones, so I'll respond to this one. We do enforce our immigration laws..... to the extent our Constitution allows us to. There are more effective ways we could enforce our immigration laws... but they would infringe upon rights of citizens of this country... so we simply can't. We have to stay within the boundaries laid out legally.

So, in your mind our Federal immigration laws ARE enforced?

Are you aware that the AZ law almost exactly mirrors Federal law? The one Obama has labeled "divisive"?

[Gil Dobie]

We do enforce immigration laws.

We deport ~200,000 people every year.

We just have standards for how we do it. We don't just go knock on doors and round up brown people or people that talk with a funny accent.

I don't remember reading that in the Arizona law.

[Skjellyfetti]

We do enforce immigration laws.

We deport ~200,000 people every year.

We just have standards for how we do it. We don't just go knock on doors and round up brown people or people that talk with a funny accent.

I don't remember reading that in the Arizona law.

Didn't say it was in it. It was a hyperbolic example to make this point:

That would be the most effective way to eliminate the immigration problem..... only, it conflicts with the Constitution.

The Arizona law would be more effective at dealing with the immigration problem...... but, it conflicts with the Constitution.... which is why the controversial parts in it were struck down.

[Skjellyfetti]

So, in your mind our Federal immigration laws ARE enforced?

Are you aware that the AZ law almost exactly mirrors Federal law? The one Obama has labeled "divisive"?

If they weren't being enforced... no one would ever be deported. They ARE being enforced... within the bounds of the Constitution.

And, when you're dealing with the law and courts and such... "almost exactly" doesn't equal "exactly"...... which is why the key parts of your state's dumbass law were struck down.

[GannonFan]

I just returned from a mission trip to Romania, where I had to produce my passport several times, I didn't take that as an infringement of my rights, as much as prudent action by Romanians.

Did they ask to see your passport because you were white?

Maybe not, but he does seem to have a problem with doing it effectively

Your other points seem to fit in this one and I don't feel like quoting the other ones, so I'll respond to this one. We do enforce our immigration laws..... to the extent our Constitution allows us to. There are more effective ways we could enforce our immigration laws... but they would infringe upon rights of citizens of this country... so we simply can't. We have to stay within the boundaries laid out legally.

So you're viewpoint is that while we have laws and try to enforce them, we can only go so far? So if that is incapable of stopping the flow of illegal immigrants and if it is incapable of doing something about the illegal immigrants already in the country, then the answer is to throw our hands up at the problem and move on? What's the solution?

[Col Hogan]

We do enforce immigration laws.

We deport ~200,000 people every year.

We just have standards for how we do it. We don't just go knock on doors and round up brown people or people that talk with a funny accent.

I don't remember reading that in the Arizona law.

Kyjelly is the only person in this discussion bringing race into it...

The law does not....the federal judge even rejected those claims...

But the liberal mind only has a few plays in the playbook...and the race card is one of the most used one...

"Think of the brown people"......

[AZGrizFan]

So, in your mind our Federal immigration laws ARE enforced?

Are you aware that the AZ law almost exactly mirrors Federal law? The one Obama has labeled "divisive"?

If they weren't being enforced... no one would ever be deported. They ARE being enforced... within the bounds of the Constitution.

And, when you're dealing with the law and courts and such... "almost exactly" doesn't equal "exactly"...... which is why the key parts of your state's dumbass law were struck down.

Wrong again, lubricunt.

The law was struck down because the Feds would rather THEY NOT do their jobs than someone ELSE try to do it FOR them.

[LeadBolt]

Skjellyfetti,

It would appear that we have differing world views and paradigms, as we interpret the same things differently.

As the son, grandson and great-grandson of men who were elected to public office as Democrats, I can tell you the party has strayed from its roots of providing equality of opportunity, freedom to choose ones life path, and defense of freedom in ways that I am afraid will destroy them all.

The death of common sense, rule by law, and individual responsibility is greatly to be mourned.

[AZGrizFan]

I don't remember reading that in the Arizona law.

Didn't say it was in it. It was a hyperbolic example to make this point:

That would be the most effective way to eliminate the immigration problem..... only, it conflicts with the Constitution.

The Arizona law would be more effective at dealing with the immigration problem...... but, it conflicts with the Constitution.... which is why the controversial parts in it were struck down.

The most effective way to deal with immigration would be for the Feds to actually enforce laws already on our books. But they won't because it conflicts with the hispanic vote.

[Col Hogan]

What ever happen to "Justice is blind" where the honest citizen has nothing to worry about and the criminal has to worry about being judged???

The Arizona law would have no impact on legal citizens and a total impact in illegals...no matter what their color is, because the law should not protect ANY COLOR of person...

[Skjellyfetti]

So you're viewpoint is that while we have laws and try to enforce them, we can only go so far? So if that is incapable of stopping the flow of illegal immigrants and if it is incapable of doing something about the illegal immigrants already in the country, then the answer is to throw our hands up at the problem and move on?

Of course we can "only go so far." We do the same with any law that is broken. Wiretapping, entrapment, etc. might be able to enforce the law and make it easier to catch people that break the law... but, it also infringes on rights. Which is why they're illegal.

What's the solution?

Well, in my opinion... we're never going to realistically be able to round up everyone that's here illegally. We have eliminate the incentives for them to come over here. Harsh penalties on people that hire illegals would be part of that (and something I support in the Arizona bill and something that wasn't overturned). We also have to help Mexico economically so that they can provide jobs for their country. As one example... NAFTA helps that in some ways and hurts it in others. There has been a huge increase in manufacturing jobs in Mexico. But, corn farmers (a huge part of Mexico for millenia) now have compete with cheap American corn. And they can't. They lose their farms, have no other means to care for their family... so they hop the border and work on American farms. We have to help Mexico give people like that a better alternative in their own country.

We have to deport people we catch (and we do)... but, we're not going to be able to stem the tide without eliminating the desire to come. They're going to keep coming as long as it's the best option to provide for their families. It's really as simple as that.

[TheDancinMonarch]

... I can tell you the party has strayed from its roots of providing equality of opportunity, freedom to choose ones life path, and defense of freedom in ways that I am afraid will destroy them all.

The death of common sense, rule by law, and individual responsibility is greatly to be mourned.

+1,000,000