I wonder what the outcome would have been if Arizona had simply required all Arizona law enforcement officers to enforce existing Federal immigration laws, which are far more strict than the new Arizona law?

Federal Appeals Courts have consistently upheld a State's right to enforce Federal Immigration laws.

Judge Bolton upheld the majority of the bill and reinforced some areas regarding the anti-sanctuary provisions and the felony crimes of smuggling, transporting, sheltering, harboring, and inducing an illegal alient to remain in the US - which translates to cities not having the choice of which federal laws to follow and putting LA, New Haven, Ct, and San Francisco in somewhat precarious positions.

She completely tossed out two of Holder's allegations. The only serious change that I can tell is that any requirement that authorities have to obtain information from Homeland Security as to legal status is just too unwieldy to enforce because Homeland Security hasn't gotten their system running in an effficient manner.

It would be operation wetback 4, as there were already three operation wetback's.

Roy,

This was the same argument made by an AZ sheriff last night.

He said the only thing 1070 does is increase the costs for the people of Arizona.

Quick action is needed, the state says.

The Justice Department, however, argues that the only effect of the judge's order "is to preserve a status quo that has existed for a long period of time."

This quote from the Justice Department, Speaks volumes.

you are absolutely correct. the status quo is the problem

Does anyone else think Brewer unnervingly resembles Reverend Kane from the Poltergeist movies?

So the fed doesn't want to enforce the law and now a judge says it has the option not to enforce the law. So why have laws at all if it is a pick or chose thing with the fed?

The same reason Christians keep the bible around, when they just pick and choose which parts of it to follow. *shrug*

Ya know, I live in Arizona. Removing the illegals and allowing this law will lower our state deficit. We have slowlky moving towards California Government slowly as they move here.

The Police Officers @!$%#ing about the cost of enforcing this law, do not take into account the amount spent investigating/prosecuting illegals.

On another note....

Since the Government and this Judge thinks that SB1070 is under the purvey of the Constitiution...

The 16th amendment should be ignored and all state taxes are illegal. This decision was based on the state's not having the power to pre-empt Federal Law.

The previous decisions, stated that the Federal Government could grant States the Right's to taxation.

With this, stating that a state cannot usurp Federal Laws, State taxation is illegal since it only enforces Federal Tax Laws.

This has been reaching a boiling point since Obama took office. Immigration has been an issue for a long time since Reagan. Instead of all this BS the AZ governor should want to back the Federal GVNMNT in finding a LOGICAL/PRACTICAL way of handleling this instead of taking the route she went. It is all politics. Obama did not create this situation and just does not want it to become a divisive politicized fiasco. All this back and forth is childish and resolves absolutely nothing. It's like a room full of unruly 10 year olds in the room no adult supervision. Conservatives bit*h because the borders are not secure...well come to the table and compromise and we will find a solution. Border security with a path to citizenship. Get it over with, make this one thing the conservatives compromise on and get it done. That simple. Look at the big picture with some level of maturity and understanding and AZ will be safer along with the rest of the border states and a path to citizenship brings the illegals out of the shadows and will hold them responsible to take what steps are necassary to become a US citizen. They then will pay into the system %100 and will actually help states economy not burdon it.

br8ybnch there has been a path to citizenship since 1952, and it is quite simple.

"Under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter Act), a foreign citizen can obtain United States citizenship through a process of immigration, commonly referred to as naturalization, once he meets the criteria established by the act.

Getting Started

1. Check the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) website. The Guide to Naturalization details eligibility requirements and provides step-by-step instruction.

Application and Fingerprinting

2. Complete the application. Include the required supporting documentation, application fee and photographs. After USCIS receives your application, it will contact you and schedule an appointment for you to get fingerprinted in one of its offices.

Interview

3. USCIS will contact you to schedule an interview where you will answer questions regarding your background, character and your desire to become an American citizen.

Citizenship Test

4. You will be asked 10 questions about American history, society, principles and form of government. The questions also test your knowledge of English. You need to answer six questions correctly to pass. You can retake the test once.

Taking the Oath

5. Candidates who successfully complete the steps above will be scheduled to attend a ceremony to take the Oath of Allegiance to the United States. This concludes your naturalization process. USCIS will mail the Certificate of Naturalization to you."

erictheredherring...your stating the obvious. Yes we have a process "that has not been followed and we have turned a blind eye to the situation. And now we need to come together and once and for all get a grip on immigration both dems and repubs. We need to address the issue with the folks that are already here and border security. We are not just going to "round up" all illegals and send them back it is just not practical. Reagan knew this and he is conservative. And this can't be done without border security whether it be a combination of "finishing" the wall, additional people to patrol the border (feet on the ground) and survaillance. Again...we know this is a big issue but to blame anything on Obama is just playing politics. Give him and the congress (both dems and repubs) some time to address the issue. Politics are politics and this is an election cycle so unless there is some type of breakthrough nothing will be done this year. Just reality. So as for your post it is not suggesting a solution and this is the problem. No solutions just hot air. That is why I will vote for Obama again because he is making changes that overall are best for the country and the reality we live in. He is "working" not twiddling his thumbs whether you agree with his policies or not. We can't say that for the republicans in congress they are not there to "work" thay are just there to block everything Obama proposes. EVERYTHING. In regards to immigration policy we need a solution not tired talking points.

As I've written before, I'll do it again: this issue mocks the entire concept of citizenship!!

erictheredherring, thanks for the documentation about the process.

Eric,

Actually, there's been a process for obtaining citizenship much longer than that.

1) Come to this country by any means necessary.

2) Rape, rob, pillage, plunder, murder and otherwise displace the country's current inhabitants.

3) Lay claim to all the (now previous or even extinct) inhabitants' lands, homes, tools, supplies, etc.

4) Force any remaining original inhabitants onto lands that won't grow anything, contain no natural resources to use or to sell to sustain a local economy.

Perhaps that's what all these latest immigrants are doing wrong. They're coming here and finding honest work, and that just doesn't set well with the whites who are the most vocal about their immigrating. They're not doing it violently enough and wiping out entire tribes in the process.

In case you didn't get the memo, Louis:

1. Illegal means illegal. Google the word "illegal" if you have to, it has nothing to do with prejudice, race, religion or any of your other talking points. It has to do with one thing, and one thing only: the law. Illegal means against the law, period.

2. The people of this country have largely rejected your "progressive" ideology and see it for what it is: an attempt to centralize control of the government on the Federal level for the purpose of achieving greater control of the individual.

Your attempt at high-brow eloqence based on talking point sheets from the DailyKos falls flat.

Louis, well said, thank you.

PTF - Blah

Unconstitutional means unconstitutional.

What part of that don't you get prag?

One word Louis, get a green card or get out to those who hop our fences with tons of drugs they will sell to buy guns and go back and murder your own or our own if we get in their way.

PragmaticToAFault ~

Your attempt at high-brow eloqence based on talking point sheets from the DailyKos falls flat.

High brow eloquence? In other words, he's smarter and more articulate than you?

No argument there.

Clarke - It remains to be seen whether or not this law is unconstitutional. A temporary injunction on three specific aspects of the law does not make them unconsitutional, and most certainly does not make the entire law unconstitutional.

Anna, suffice to say, it is not possible for me to care less what your opinion of my eloquence versus Louis' might be. If you have nothing to add to the actual discussion of the law in AZ, perhaps you should do some more reading on the subject and come back later.

Wow, what a crock of C#$p you just wrote. People of sick and tired of illegals coming here and using our welfare systems that they don't pay for and damaging property and running drugs, and killing ranchers. What is wrong with your thinking is that the illegals are breaking our laws and using our systems without regard for the damage they are causing. I'm not saying that all illegals are drug runner, but even as good as they maybe they have broken the law by coming here without authorization. We can't go to Mexico without papers so what's wrong with asking the same of them?

Thank you Louis for a well thought out, well articulated comment. Now if we could get more people on both sides to communicate effecively and (gasp) with an open mind, we could make some real headway on issues like this. It's really refreshing to read something articulate and even eloquent here instead of the usual junior high arguments. I envy your way with words.

PTF - True, it only makes the main parts of the law unconstitutional, the remaining simply parrots current federal law. Also, the election of Obama by the majority of Americans is a rejection of your "conservative" (or "hypocritical" or "racist" or whatever you want to call it) ideology. I love it when conservatives want no big governemt and deficits! (unless it is to invade a foriegn country for no reason, give tax breaks to the wealthy, take away rights of individals and give that decision to the Feds (ie gay marriage, abortion), bail out States (ie- Hayley Barbour and Bobby Jindal), etc ad nauseum. How do you keep up with the double-think?

Not sure about high brow, and certainly do not know much about eloquence, but I do know this: In 1986 the Federal government told us we had a big problem with illegal aliens. They said we needed to do somethng or it would get much worse. Their plan was "comprehensive" - there was to be strict enforcement AND a pathway to citizenship (except back then things were not so politically charged, so they just said they were going to, and did, legalize all the illegals).

But that turned out to be a lie (or maybe not a lie, maybe the government, as it is so often the case just couldn't do what it said it could). We got 2.5 million newly minted citizens, but not the secured border.

So here we are, just 24 years later. I can remember way back then. I think a lot of folks can also. Yet now we hear the same argument - there has to be "comprehensive" reform. BUT WE ALREADY TRIED THAT. Why should we believe the Feds now?

As the old saying goes, fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. The feds and the amnesty folks fooled us in '86. We have no reason to believe they won't again now.

Or how about this - we tried it the "comprehensive" way in '86. There were 2.5-3 million illegals then. Now there are well over 20 million, so obviously and objectively it did not work. So how about we try simple enforcement now. Let's see if that works. I suspect it will, as we see from Arizona, a large number of illegals are in fact self deporting. I just think it'd be nice if they went back to their own countries (Who knows, maybe they can make it better/make a difference after seeing how things work in America), instead of New Mexico and California.

And this has nothing to do with race. For me it's just about the money. Here in California our education, health and public services cannot sustain the added burdens of the huge population of illegals who do not pay appropriate taxes. Not to mention all the other issues - unlicensed drivers, social security fraud, wage depression, etc.

Prag

The judge agrees with you and had no problem with the constitutional aspects of the law. Neither do I.

Nobody I know supports illegal immigration. And nobody you know should support anything that could REMOTELY infringe on the rights of legal aliens or citizens. I think alot could be cleared up if "reasonable suspicion" could be defined to specifics.

Pragmatic - ....and racism by any other name is still racism. You can cloak it in whatever self righteous igdination you can muster but it doesn't fly. Our country was built on immigrants, legal and illegal. The hate filled rhetoric that is produced by people like yourself and you all know who I am talking about here, is un-American. Louis is absolutely correct that thoughtful individuals looking at our collective past and making a reasoned determination of the direction our country must take, is the way forward. Certainly not your "round 'em up and send 'em back approach". It's unrealistic and NEVER will happen. This country doesn't have the resources for one thing to find 12 million illegals. Your position is not a winning position no matter how much you wish it so. You just look ugly and hateful.

All of you that are against the AZ law have yet to offer a solution for the crime and ILLEGAL immigration the southern border States have to deal with. If fact, I would believe most of you haven't even read the law. Tell me what AZ can do to protect their citizens against foreigners that are breaking our laws. Tell me how homeland security can keep our nation safe against terrorists if we can't protect our borders. Offer real solutions for real problems rather then posting meaningless, intellectual sounding comments with no substance that do nothing but stalls real change AZ needs! How many more kidnappings, murders, and drug related offenses does AZ have to manage before you agree, we must stop the flow of illegal immigrants into our country? I would hold my State responsible to pick up the ball when the Federal Government has dropped it.

Brent, are you supposed to use block quoting when regurgitating the DNC emails? Because your line of reasoning is almost verbatim from an April DNC email. Yes, I do get them.

I'm just curious, it would be a shame for you to violate TOS and for all of us to miss out on your partisan raving. It is quite amusing.

What's also amusing is that apparently 61% of the American popluation is made up of racist conservatives according to you, since 61% of the American population support the AZ law. It really makes one wonder how Obama got elected, if that's true.

Oh wait. It's not true, is it, Brent.

Laurie, I find your rhetoric ugly and hateful. Because you, through your prism of hatred for anyone that supports the rule of law, have determined that doing so equals racism.

And you know what pleases me to no end? The American people are seeing through that, and telling people like yourself that you are no longer relevant to the discussion because of your inability to understand the difference between "legal" and "illegal". Of course this country was built on immigration, and rational people will welcome immigrants from any country who respect our laws.

laurie-480643 - When you say "racism", what reace are you talking about? Hispanics are not a race.

We could agree to disagree but I feel that would be a waste of time since liberals are wrong and conservatives are Right, no pun intended.

My views do not line up with your views, I think I made that very clear. I do not gather talking points, matter of fact I'm usually too busy to tune into many of the television shows and if I am watching tv I am watching a movie with the kids.

But realistically, Arizona's law is a no brainer in regards to Republican attempts to continue the fear mongering. Fear is a sizeable antagonist to any society that can disrupt the flow of democracy. Demonize the administration, the economy, immigration, consumer markets and you place that sense of doubt into potential victories. On top of everything positive, opponents to President Obama and truth seekers realize that every venue of communications is fair game to issuing hate, fear and animosity to shout out the message of hope and change.

Good job devil.

Louis, ya know, this "I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony" bunk is the exact reason we're in this mess. Saying that AZ has "no plans to help the country" is so ridiculously short sighted. I live in Phoenix and as it has been said about a million times, this action was taking because all the US govt wants to do is pull the "free thinking progressive" card and NOTHING is being done to stop the flow of illegals, drugs, crime and all the frills into our state. Does whatever state you live in always consider the effect of their laws on the other 49 states before they pass anything? What is the purpose of the state government even existing if that is the case? Reminder: We live in the United STATES of America....and if we take away the rights of the states to enact their own laws, then welcome to the new USSR!

People like YOU that say we need to be all open-minded and "free thinking" are the cause of this problem, and the irony of it all is that YOU and your ilk are the ones drinking the kool-aid of liberal administration and then claiming you're being all independent. MORE govt control that you are seeking is NOT freedom....get a clue... <<<gather the collective of our pasts and apply it to our present in order to stabilize our future.>>> Good grief, where did you come up with that load of baloney?

"our dilemma of dealing with complex issues of people attempting to seek the American Dream"

It's only made complex to cover up the annoying fact that to seek the "American Dream" one needs to be a legal American first, all that other jibber jabber you typed out won't change that fact.

Collect your thoughts, this was done for the nation, no other state was making an effort to resolve an issue that has been burning since the Reagan amnesty. Another amnesty will not solve the issue as the illegals will not suffer the results of their crime, "entering this country illegally" or did you bleeding heart forget that this is a crime. The last amnesty with over 2 million illegals in our country, only 400 thousand took the offer. What makes this any differant. So the illegal issue must stop somewhere.

Continued cost to the states are out of control and at one point in the future, the tax base will not pay for the welfare programs and free health care needed to support these criminals.

This issue has no party affiliation, its a matter of who is affected the most, and those that live in states not directly affected seems to think this is a minor issue. If you would like, I am sure the drug cartells and drop houses next to your home is fine with you, and failure to enforce laws to protect you is ok as well.

This is not an AZ issue, it is a national issue. Of course, monday, when the news admitted that terrorist group are at the california border dealing and selling drugs, this to should be ignored as a republican problem.

The efforts by the state of az is not a new effort , it is outlined in 236g regulation for immigration. The worthless administration just refuses to enforce laws that are on their books. In this case and like the drug enforcement issues, the govenment always the state to assist in enforcement, but in this case Obama and the non tax paying, tax cheating whitehouse, wants the latio votes. That is all this is about, votes for the democrooks.

I do not trust this administration as we have been lied to , taxpayers cheated, Rengal, Getner and others, not just Democrates, but they are all in it for themselves. Whatever happen to whats good for america
?

No one is singing kumbaya. However, Guns a blazin' Bush made it clear that the Cowboy Way was the worst way.

Listen Chief, we can agree to disagree and admit that it's not a perfect world, but in order to make any segway, there need to be well thought out policies to address immigration. Period. If we attempt to make it about hispanics (or Mexicans) then we will always be on the losing end. Crimes are committed by all races.

Get a grip man. Pun intended.

Clarke - this has been explained repeatedly - on CNN most recently, and I'm really not interested in insulting you by suggesting that perhaps you broaden your scope of media selections to include those media venues that might actually provide a full description of the law - but maybe you should. We've had enough back and forth on issues for me to consider you well informed, and I'm actually quite surprised that on this issue you seem to be not so.

"Reasonable suspicion" includes inability to produce a valid drivers license, as an example. If a valid license is produced, suspicion ends there. Period. As a fourth generation American citizen, I am expected to produce a valid drivers license if I'm pulled over, and can be further investigated and fined if I can't. Are my rights being violated? Just like a police officer could do if I was lacking ID, the police in AZ could then ask for information and verify it. If it can't be verified, or comes back as false, is that not "reasonable"? Because that's how it goes down, just like it does for legal citizens.

Of course I don't support, in any way, constitutional violations against legal citizens, and I don't consider being asked for ID in the course of a legal contact a constitutional violation. Do you? Because if so, then every single law enforcement officer in every single precinct in this country has the power to violate every single citizen's constitutional rights.

Now, if you're going to say that the police will abuse that power and demand people's identification just because they're "brown"? I'm going to call BS on that, for two reasons: 1. the law prohibits that, in four places and the amendment and doing so would be totally counterproductive to the goals of the law, and 2. If that is the litmus test, that a law "might" be abused via law enforcement, then so could every single other law on the books. Are you suggesting they all be struck?

And by the way, Clarke. One of the aspects that was enjoined was the requirement that legal immigrants carry their green card at all times. That mirrors Federal immigration law.

And one other thing, Reagan was not interested in Immigration Control. Matter of fact he could have cared less about anything that had to deal with the neighbors to the South unless it put money in his friends pockets.

clarke.ong at #2.3 "Unconstitutional means unconstitutional"

clarke.ong at #2.10 "The judge agrees with you and had no problem with the constitutional aspects of the law. Neither do I."

And now ladies and gentleman, our Duncan YO-YO award quickly goes to clarke for contradicting himself within a very, very short time......in fact, he may have set a new record for SPEED in SELF-CONTRADICTION !

Clarke, did you hear about the three (3) Arizona officers who were shot ....what ? Yesterday or maybe the day before ??

Let's face it, Barack Obama does not have the BALLS to enforce EXISTING IMMIGRATION LAW in this great country, because he FEARS it will cost him the hispanic vote !! Other than that, this Federal attack on Arizona law is just political posturing.

LouisJ Amen to that! For the life of me I cannot figure out how some have completely lost most if not all logical thought since our President was elected. If they are so worried about the Government upholding the Constitution - then anyone with any sense would know that this law was at least partially unconstitional. The Judge saw that and took that part out.......fine, they got their so called law, I say let it be and move on.

LouisJ wrote:

Arizona's attempt to hijack Federal Laws is a clear indication that they have no plans to help the country but instead hinder any forward, progressive movements. The Republicans are shackled by their own limits of free thinking. Immigration is a matter that requires level headed, tedious responses to deal with. It cannot be dealt with by a good ol' boy attitude of fake patriotism. In other words, our dilemma of dealing with complex issues of people attempting to seek the American Dream can only be found in the deep thoughts of intellectual ideals that are being sought out by groups that expand the realm of social identities.

We as a society need to gather the collective of our pasts and apply it to our present in order to stabilize our future. If we continue to sit idly by and allow old belief systems to dictate the harsh realm of bigotry and prejudice, then we deserve what the future holds. However, if we, as a free thinking progressive society, are active in utilizing a stance based on well thought out policies of change and action, then there will be a gradual change in immigration judgments that will result in healthier debates that address immigration of a world wide focus.

First thing LouisJ, is that Arizona did not try to "hijack" the federal law, they only attempted a reasonable way to actually enforce it since the Federal Government is ignoring it. And you are right in that they are not trying to help the country. They only seek relief for a problem to their state, hence the Arizona state law HB-1070.

Second thing is that immigrants seeking the American dream do not do it illegally, they apply for citizenship and work at becoming Americans. And that is ALL immigrants from any country.

While you write eloquently, and your prose is commendable, you still pull the race card when you don't get what you want.

This has nothing, nada, zip, zilch, zero - to do with race. It has to do with the same Federal Laws you say Arizona is trying to Hijack.

ILLEGAL IS ILLEGAL !

Anna Molly

PragmaticToAFault said "your 'attempt' at high brow eloquence."

Only a few like you think would the attempt was successful.

Whether someone uses the terms "progressive" or "comprehensive immigration reform", its real meaning is Amnesty for lawbreakers, and the only reason the Democrats are pushing it is that most Hispanics vote Democrat, and the public is still not buying it. Apparently getting a vote advantage is more important than enforcing the laws.

no plans to help the country? let them first help themselves since the federal government can't seem to spare any resources. you should get off your high horse and go visit southern arizona and see for yourself, instead of listening to the brainwashing Obama administration and it's league of cronies.

@louisj

You need to read my comment to brent below near Anna.

@ Anna Molly and Brent

Why do you not understand facts. People here illegally are in fact criminals. They broke the law of this land. It does not matter if they are the best people in the world, it only matters that they in fact broke the law. The ramifications of that act is jail time (possibly) or deportation. That is the law check it out - goggle illegal and punishment. Now, the cost of this is very high for the states, which is really the taxpayers that would be me and (if you work at all) you. So, I am paying for my children, myself and that is difficult enough. Now I have to pay for these people( no matter what race) to go to the hospital for free? Pay for social benefits?? Not on my dime. I also have people crossing the border who increase the risk of diseases (they do NOT have their shots up to date) And they may be bringing in bombs strapped to them for all ANYONE knows. Your liberal progressive way SHOULD fall this November, because if ANYONE has any brains they will realize that we need the checks AND balances that were built into this political system we have. GO AZ!!!!

louis,

If we attempt to make it about hispanics (or Mexicans) then we will always be on the losing end. Crimes are committed by all races.

who the hell is making it about "hispanics (or mexicans)?" are you trying to kill this conversation by suggesting racial bias is behind those that back the az law? couldn't it be that maybe, just maybe, people are fed up with the double standard?

why is it ok for one group of people to openly break the law, while another group gets punished? in sanctuary cities, an illegal can give a cop an obviously fake ID and the cop is instructed to let it slide. what do you think would happen if a legal American citizen did that?

is it ok for non-Americans to enter this country illegally and recieve benefits that are intended for US citizens? not foreign nationals.

is it ok for illegals to demand rights as if they are American citizens?

is it ok for illegals and their sympathizers to speak of "reqonquista" on our soil?

is it ok for illegals and or their sympathizers to trash the American flag, while hoisting the flag of their native country?

is it ok for a group of people to openly and defiantly disrespect the laws of this nation? have laws become nothing more than mere suggestions? that seems to be what the obama administration, illegals, and their sympathizers are suggesting.

maybe these are some of the reasons a majority of Americans support the az law. if you could get past your "bigotry and prejudice" maybe you could see that?

I speed on my commute, that's illegal. If illegal is illegal and all illegalities are the same level of unforgivable should I receive the same level of punishment as an illegal immigrant for doing 85 on a highway due to the nature of the crime involving...you know...something illegal? What about violent crime? That's just as illegal, if someone kills another person, premeditated, by your logic that person has commited the crime of doing something illegal, should he get a $103.30 ticket he needs to pay in 30 days to the DMV? Legal and illegal isn't black and white, most Americans bend and break laws, be it minor or major, the response to these crimes should be in a manner to appropriately prevent the person from commiting them while mantaining them as a contributing and taxable member of society. Speeding? A hefty fine might make you think twice about tacking 15 MPH on to the speed limit. Highschool kid smoking pot? Going before a judge and getting community service is probably going to make them second guess the activity next time. Being researched, prosecuted and deported is going to require a lot more money than offering a slap on the wrist and all the necessary resources to integrate into our society and pay taxes (not to mention open up a lot more better paying job opportunities than under-the-table work). The whole law has about as much forethought as what beer I pick up on my way home on any given Friday, even if it mainly echo's federal policy. What would I do to make it better? I wouldn't know, it's not my job. But I can safely say it wouldn't be the least efficient and most expensive solution presented to me.

The conservatives are simple minded. They see the world in black and white. It is my way or the highway with them. They don't understand complexities because their simple little minds can't handle anything beyond black and white. Absolutes appeal to them nuance doesn't. They can't help it. It is just the way they are.

Instead of the idea to deport several million people to Mexico, when many aren't even from Mexico (but that doesn't matter as it is too complex to realize) as the right wingnuts would like we should take each case on a case-by-case basis. Yes, they broke our laws and need to pay some sort of penalty, like a fine, for doing so. We have to remember that these are, for the most part, just desperate people trying to make a living to support their families and have no evil intent.

President Ronald Reagan pardoned millions of illegal aliens back in the 80s because he understood (rare for a conservative) the complexities of enforcement of immigration laws and didn't want to have to deal with the issue. That helped him get Hispanic votes too. Which, by the way, this issue still exists and has grown over the years. Were it not for 9/11 the issue wouldn't be as big.

Economic reasons favor allowing many of the illegals to stay and for them to pay a fine. Give them papers that allow them to stay and continue to pick our food. How would you like to pay $5 for a head of iceberg lettuce or a small basket of strawberries? Without the illegals that is likely what you would pay and possibly more.

So, in summary, it isn't as simple as deporting them but a much more complex issue that will need to be dealt with. The last several Presidents, both Republican and Democratic have failed to deal with the illegal immigration issue and now it is in the lap of President Obama. He has sent more troops to the border than any president since the Mexican war. As far as doing much more I doubt anything will be done right away as we have other issues that seem to take center stage right now. Eventually he will deal with the issue and Congress will make a law that will be both humane and stern when dealing with people who are here illegally and not just those who look Mexican and will ensure that Hispanic Americans will have no fear of being asked for papers because they look like "them".

adler,

you want to talk about "simple minded" and understanding "complexities because their simple little minds can't handle anything beyond black and white."

maybe your "simple little mind" doesn't realize that illegals do far more than "pick our food." go to a construction site sometime, or a meatpacking plant. check out the people doing landscaping or cleaning. if you think the only jobs illegals take is "picking our food" you are dead wrong.

it's obvious your "simple little mind" doesn't know the facts when you say things like "He has sent more troops to the border than any president since the Mexican war." obama is sending 1200 troops to the border, bush sent 6000.

so, in summary, maybe you should refrain from the insults and bone up on the facts before you start throwing insults?

What you are saying is that abolish Immigration and Naturalization service. Or you are saying that let uneducated people come freely to our coutnry but enforce laws against smart, educated entrepeuners the ones who contributes greatly to our country. Let them not cross the borer and deport them.

But if you want to adopt some of them, I am all for that. You are legal citizen and you have right to adopt foreign babies even thought lots of American babies rot in orphanages across the country.

That sounds like a whole lot of hot air!!

Adler - Good post. Voted.

Los conservativos vean el mundo en negro o blanco. Pero en verdad es de gris. The conservatives view the world in black and white but really it is grey.

As with this issue there are Pros and Cons to what these people do for us with their labor and their economic spending vs. what they receive in social services. Without the far extreme rhetoric this is an issue that truely needs to be addressed in a rational matter.

Instead of trying to solve the problem there is no dialogue, no compromise and no solutions are offered.

Reminds me of the Billy Joel song - Shades of Grey

"Some things were perfectly clear, seen with the vision of youth
No doubts and nothing to fear, I claimed the corner on truth
These days it's harder to say I know what I'm fighting for
My faith is falling away
I'm not that sure anymore

Shades of grey wherever I go
The more I find out the less that I know
Black and white is how it should be
But shades of grey are the colors I see

Once there were trenches and walls and one point of every view
Fight 'til the other man falls
Kill him before he kills you
These days the edges are blurred, I'm old and tired of war
I hear the other man's words
I'm not that sure anymore

Shades of grey are all that I find
When I come to the enemy line
Black and white was so easy for me
But shades of grey are the colors I see

Now with the wisdom of years I try to reason things out
And the only people I fear are those who never have doubts
Save us all from arrogant men, and all the causes they're for
I won't be righteous again
I'm not that sure anymore

Shades of grey wherever I go
The more I find out the less that I know
Ain't no rainbows shining on me
Shades of grey are the colors I see"

Unfortunately as with most issues when fear is involved and the 'other' is concerned it is hard for people to have a logical, thoughtful discussion. With the amount of fear and hate so prevalent out there and the exaggeration of immigrant crime I truely hope that people don't turn to violence.

Well written and thoughtful LouisJ. Unfortunately, I knowmyopic individuals like ptaf have us outnumbered. Isn't it interesting how small-minded twits, by there sheer numbers, have managed to put on sale our freedom for their security.

How in the heck is this bill unconstitutional or racist for that matter? So if I get pulled over and I don't have ID, what do you think will happen? You think I would be let go? Believe me if I give them a name? I won't tell you if I'm White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, etc.................So based on that information how do you know who I am? Here's the answer, a Government issue ID, so how is that unconstitutional? You don't have papers ie a Green Card, a Work Visa, etc...............you're an illegal. You boke the Law-PERIOD!!

Paul - If you get pulled over without your license most states will let you go and give you thirty days to present it. It'd be a bit absurd to arrest everyone who got pulled over because they are missing a license. I actually got pulled over the other day with an invalid license from another state that had expired with the wrong address and my old surname on it, basicly a useless sheet of plastic. I got a verbal warning that I should probably get that changed...eventually.

So yes. The cops will let you go if you don't have government issue id, or any id for that matter, unless there is reson to do otherwise.

LOL, nothing like a little copy and paste to be "eloquent".

I must say at it's core immigration is about who it helps and who it hurts...

Immigration is part humanitarian: uniting families, escaping persecution, providing opportunity.

Immigration is part self interest: welcoming individuals with valuable skills, tourism industry, business contacts.

Immigration is part security: avoid political friction, preventing criminal minded entry, protect citizens and infrastructure availability.

I would say that most avid supporters of illegal immigrant "rights" to be in this country is based on overemphasizing the first part, and undervaluing the other two.

But there is one other factor that supporters of illegal immigration don't factor...

The damage being done *TO MEXICO*, people! America immigration is *SO LAX AND IRRESPONSIBLE* that anyone with half a brain wonders 'why stick around and fix Mexico when anyone can go to America and do better'. The result is that Mexico not only looses its best and brightest, but is demotivated to fix their own country to make it better for everyone, especially the people left behind stuck in grinding poverty.

The short sighted knee jerk "humanitarian" view is wrecking Mexico and creating a far larger crisis that will last for generations to come.

It has not been ruled unconstitutional. She just issued and injunction until there is a trial. At appeal is just to get the injunction lifted. Besides if it is found unconstitutional in Arizona that is only the first step. The opera ain't over till Judge Roberts and his associates have played the last note. Anyone want to bet the name of that tune is?

This is one of the smarmiest things I've ever read on Newsvine.

"Arizona's attempt to hijack Federal Laws is a clear indication that they have no plans to help the country but instead hinder any forward, progressive movements."

Yep, if there's one thing that hinders a progressive movement, it's upholding the law to protect the citizens of this country. Sounds to me like the people of Arizona have plans to protect themselves whereas the federal government does not.

And what is a 'progressive movement'? In this case, is it a plan to subsidize the existence of millions of people who are here illegally? Perhaps you should fund this yourself; I have no interest, as do many tens of millions of Americans.

The Republicans are shackled by their own limits of free thinking.

And this has what, exactly, to do with this issue? Looks to me that many Americans - not just Republicans - are behind this idea. Nice try at obfuscating the issue with an unrelated opinion.

Immigration is a matter that requires level headed, tedious responses to deal with.

Really? And why is that? Why does it need more than a fence, enforced laws, revised legal immigration processes, and discretion on our part as to who we let in? Other countries restrict immigrants to those who will not be burdens on the host country and have not only assets but demonstrable skills and education in fields which will benefit the host country.

It cannot be dealt with by a good ol' boy attitude of fake patriotism.

Nothing is more fake than the patriotic desire to protect our borders and citizens. Your description here his absolutely ludicrous. But again, nice try.

In other words, our dilemma of dealing with complex issues of people attempting to seek the American Dream can only be found in the deep thoughts of intellectual ideals that are being sought out by groups that expand the realm of social identities.

It's hard to stop laughing at this gem. The dilemma? Really? People want to come here. That's pretty simple. Expounding on the reasons may be nice for a paper but is relatively useless here - it's a given and a constant. 'Expanding the realm of social identities.' So, should America become Mexico? Should Mexico become America? Which identity do you prefer? Or should we bring up cultural relativism? Do borders serve any purpose in your mind? Do governments? Does the constitution? Wow.

We as a society need to gather the collective of our pasts and apply it to our present in order to stabilize our future.

Human societies don't do a good job of this. I wouldn't hold out hope, but the idealism is nice.

If we continue to sit idly by and allow old belief systems to dictate the harsh realm of bigotry and prejudice, then we deserve what the future holds.

I believe in upholding the Constitution and existing laws. How exactly is that a problem? And wouldn't you say that our government has sat idly by and ignored this issue long enough?

Illegal is illegal regardless of color or country. This has nothing to do with bigotry or prejudice. But it's starting to have a lot to do with economics and... wait for it... public safety. Talk to people who have fled AZ due to having illegals sleeping in their yards. Or the crime.

If we do nothing, and spend our days pontificating with flowery, empty prose, then can you guess what the future will hold for AZ and other border states? It holds hospitals closing down due to lack of funds (emergency rooms are expensive!). A wave of crime. Reduced property values.

However, if we, as a free thinking progressive society, are active in utilizing a stance based on well thought out policies of change and action, then there will be a gradual change in immigration judgments that will result in healthier debates that address immigration of a world wide focus.

...........well, maybe.

People will flow, when allowed to do so, to areas they perceive as more prosperous - where they have a chance at a better life for them and their families. In this, we cannot fault or blame those from Mexico. Or from any other country.

However, rather than letting everyone in, why not encourage them to improve their own native countries for the better?

Economic reasons favor allowing many of the illegals to stay and for them to pay a fine. Give them papers that allow them to stay and continue to pick our food. How would you like to pay $5 for a head of iceberg lettuce or a small basket of strawberries? Without the illegals that is likely what you would pay and possibly more.

I never quite understand this argument. Are you impugning our minimum wage and health and safety laws? Or is there some other reason that I am missing that makes illegals cheaper to employ? If these illegals are sanctioned/allowed to stay under your plan, don't you think the same worker protections should apply to them as apply to citizens?

I'd love an explanation of this line of thought...if you argue that illegals are vital to our economy (I don't buy this), they will have to stay illegal in order to provide the service that they do (cheap unregulated labor). If this is a good thing, you're sort of spitting on all of our labor/protection laws and I would say you're arguing for exploitation. That doesn't seem real compassionate to me.

Or maybe I'm missing your point...

The bitter irony of this thread is we all feel the other camp is ignorant/racist/niave/out of touch/what ever it may be. Both sides of this debate are so seperated and so ingrained in their oppinion that nobody is going switch sides. We are all just going to be offended, spew forth our logic about why we're right, and continue the argument with more gusto when the other side doesn't see level with us. None of us are going to give a huge revelation to even one of the other group. The lines are drawn and we're just going to keep throwing venomous arguments back and forth.

I'm going to blame Al Gore for inventing the internet.

Adler, et al.

As much as you want to complicate this issue with soaring emotional rhetoric, and accuse other people of being "simple minded", you will fail in deconstructing the following premise.

Illegal means that an act is against the law. It knows no race, creed or nationality.

Interestingly, the only people in this vine - and pretty much any other time there's a discussion on this issue - that are bringing up race are the ones accusing other people of being racists. That will fail, more and more every day as people catch on and decide those of you screaming about race are the actual racists and decide you are irrelevant.

As to the rambling regarding the various levels of punishment for various crimes, it also fails. There are relative levels of crime and punishment, and the Federal law in this country requires that people that have broken our immigration laws return to their home country. Read the laws if you have to, they've been posted repeatedly in this thread.

The laws apply to everyone, regardless of country of origin or color of skin. In Arizona, simply by pure geography, the laws will end up being broken by and applied to Mexicans to a much greater degree than say, Norwegians. However, there is a serious issue of national security here, because our weak border enforcement to the south is not lost on bigger, more dangerous enemies than drug cartels: terrorists from several middle eastern countries hostile to the US have been caught coming through the Mexican border. How many got through, and were not caught?

The true "racists" or "bigots" in this discussion are those of you assuming that the law only applies to Hispanics, and attempting to claim that because someone is of Hispanic descent, they are somehow above the law or should not be held accountable for breaking it. Why?

Typical Liberal mentality Louis. So, you saying legalize the Illegals? Turn the US into a 3rd world country in a year or two. That is definately progressive. They make drugs for people like you. It's called "Prozac"

I don't need drugs bruh. And I never said anything about legalizing illegals.

And to the cat that broke my statements down, all you essentially did was show that you felt threatened. Man, please.

lets face it napolitano as governor and brewer as secretary of state helped create this mess. both used their high state offices to promote a housing boom in arizona. and both turned the other way allowing arizona to become an open border state..oh yeh arizona employers turned the other way too. they took advantage of the open border hiring illegals instead of paying americans a living wage. the only official that seemed to speak out against illegals during the boom period was sheriff arpaio. he enjoyed playing cowboys and mexicans. he also enjoyed watching imprisoned mexicans strip and put on pink pajama jail garb.in other words he talked like wyatt earp but acted like pee wee herman.. this is my solution for arizona. the united nations created the jewish state arguing that this land had once been the ancient land of the jews. i would like the u.n. to re-convene and agree to give arizona back to the navajos. after all, this land was once their ancient land. one thing for sure would be outlawed-pink pajama voyeurism.

323232-1496119 where I live illegals are not eligable nor do they get welfare. I live in a border state. I don't know where you live but here they don't get welfare. People need to check not assume when making stupid statements.

pragmatic- i agree with you 100% illegal is illegal. they are not here legally, they do not belong here, it doesn't matter what color or where they are from, they need to be sent back. no more amnesty, the last one just opened a whole can of worms. i live in texas and we have very big issues with illegals here, no car insurance, when they drive, no med insurance, so we all pay it as taxpayers, and the crime they bring in is appalling. this has nothing to do with race, but legality.

louis,

And to the cat that broke my statements down, all you essentially did was show that you felt threatened. Man, please.

way to go louey. don't bother debating the validity of the points i brought up, just hurl insults. that's the second prong of your two pronged attack. play the race card. accuse the other side of racial bigotry (even though you know virtually nothing about that person). when that doesn't work, hurl insults. it really supports your point of view. lol

Touchy today, Pragmatic? Pity, that. And I was planning to like you.

But tell me this: Why should I have to read anything other than your posts? And from now on, by golly, that's what I plan to do. Imagine how much improved my understanding of the world will be, and how much more informative my posts will be.

Or, maybe not.

Anyway, on second thought, cancel that. I'll be too busy watching The View. A Tupperware Party from Hell seems to be exactly on my level, and about all the news I need, other than the weather report (Simon & Garfunkel).

Won't you join me on Bill O'Reilly's big white vinyl sophistry? I'll bring the kool-aid. Make it grape. Frankly, I think we both need to elevate our game.

So louis, obvious you don't care about the law. Are you illegal too, or just wannabe illegal?

Louis-At first glance of the AZ law, I felt that there was nothing more righteous to do for our citizens. Clean up the lawbreakers and ship them out. In this world we have rules, and if you break them, you pay the consequences. That's how I was raised, and I pity those that weren't raised that way. However, to credit what you've said, it was only during respectful discussion with a sister-in-law who works with illegals at a restaurant that I gained a perspective I had not seen. My argument is that these illegals are taking jobs from legal citizens. The problem is, so many of these kitchen jobs are not available to anyone under 18 years of age due to the equipment. And people over 18 won't work for the minimum wages these jobs pay. Or perhaps they will if the economy gets bad enough. Regardless, people that are here trying to become legal can not due to their lack of qualities sought by immigration. Perhaps the correct thing to do is to allow the corporations to seek the qualities sought, and sponsor those that want to become citizens? But then that opens the door to corporate greed seeking low wage jobs to maximize their corporate wealth. I think that this problem has many different aspects that need to be fixed. And I do feel that many of the workers here, are seeking to be here legally. So let me ask you this, if we are to overhaul this whole problem and try to make it easier and better for these immigrants to exist at these jobs, should we not start with stopping the flood first, then reform for those that are already here? Just like comparing it to the gulf spill-we could get all the skimmers in the world, but until we stopped the well we were just trying to maintain. This law has brought the issue to the forefront-and that is a good thing. It's what we do with it now, is what will define us as a country. I don't want to grant them all amnesty, I want a reform process that will allow those that actually want to contribute to stay, and those that are leaching to be returned.

And in the course of creating the great utophia one can meditate on how to pay for it.

Adler 273784-they do get welfare through their anchor babies. And if you don't think the criminal aliens abusing the hospital system isn't welfare, I don't know what it is.

peteMT-great post

Atheismo-I never understood the "they pick our food" argument either-if we don't have a form of "guest worker" program, the farmers would have to increase the wages to mim. wage and then, as far as I can tell, the cost of food would skyrocket. The cost of harvesting is a very small part of the cost passed on to the consumer-I've read that it's about 2-5%. And in Washington State, fruit growers up there were paying $10/hr. to pick fruit. That's what I was making as a Harley mechanic in CA. And I had to have the education to do that. Seems like me being responsible for someone's safety is a little more important than being able to climb a ladder and pick an apple off the tree. Yea-I was on my feet for 8+ hrs. a day, so don't try the "it's hard labor" line.

Outrage does not equal racism. American citizens have a right to expect that our laws will be enforced, and that their gov't will protect and defend them. This lawsuit is about nothing but political pandering on the part of this administration.

People residing in the USA illegally are NOT immigrants. They are illegal invaders, who should be treated as such. Race is not the issue. The LAW is the issue. And, it's amazing how that is lost on the LAWYERS, JUDGES, and our current AMINISTRATION...

It's a sad commentary on our leadership (which really isn't leadership at all).

In the worst of times, our Federal gov't is taking issue with its own citizens, who want the laws enforced, and is standing up for NON-CITIZEN invaders, who are somehow privileged enough to use our tax dollars, but not held to our laws.... THAT is just plain wrong, any way you shake it!

Sorry Louis. The facts don't support your "eloquent" views. Arizona didn't "hijack" anything. A state has the right to make it's own laws as long as they fall within the framework of the U.S. constitution.

Arizona is trying to protect the people of Arizona. They have found themselves the focal point of this problem which has been ignored by the Federal government for way too long. I think all the states should follow Arizona's lead and quietly but effectively elliminate any and all safe havens for the illegal aliens. As individuals, we can all do our part. Don't hire day workers. Request that a contractor show you proof of citezenship of his employees.

Louis. Let me guess, you are a journalism student, maybe freshman or sophamore level at a junior college. Your writing, though it shows some rudiments of style, would recieve a C- if I were grading it. With the word BOMBASTIC written in red next to the grade. Try reading something for rhetoric. Maybe some best sellers. This may show you that, in writing, simpler is sweeter. Someone reading your post just gets confused and moves on. Make your point, but make it clearly. You do have potential though. Don't quit.

Edward,

Actually LouisJ's post is Very clear, am sorry that you had problems understanding his nuanced approach to the problems as he sets out. As Adler points out, Nuance is very hard for the right to get as they see things in black and white, forgetting that those just represent the extremes and MOST things fall into the grey areas. Immigration reform and the myriad problems associated with it need a thoughtful, humane response as we are talking about 20 million PEOPLE, not just things that you can pick up and throw away. We are talking about men, women and children of nearly all ages, education levels and even political persuasions. Even though they are illegal we must deal with these people sensible, after all, they actually do work for the American Dream just like anyone else, and having come from poverished nations to begin with, America is a very inviting looking place to be for them. Some method of fining them and allowing them to get legal will probably be the best method of dealing with the huge numbers of them especially since finding, arresting and deporting that many people is an undertaking that few other than Germany in WWII, or us with the Japanese in the same war has ever done, and we have a huge geographical area to consider as well.

Do not go dissing someone for their writing style just because you disagree with the message, that is childish to the extreme, I would give him an 'A' for his writing because it is to the point and actually very clear. Maybe the right wingers get too confused with messages that are not of one or two lines and are written for 5th grade level, but the rest of us assuredly DO read his message and enjoy the clarity and context as well as the fact that it is not dumbed down.

BHonest. I wasn't disrespecting Louis at all. I was just trying to help him in his writing efforts by offering advice as to how he can improve his style. Thats all. As to the content of his several posts, I think he means well, but is sadly deluded or misinformed. But I think, with help, he may have a chance of improving his contributions.

So tired of hearing "illegal is illegal." Because there is no rational basis to support an unworkable immigration policy, we instead retreat to tautology in the hopes that no one will bother to examine the issue at hand. Speeding, spitting, parking for longer than 15 minutes in a loading zone, and cursing in public are illegal in most places, too. We don't uproot families, take away people's jobs, or force them from their homes into exile when they commit these illegal acts. Generally, a fine is imposed to counter such misdemeanor infractions. When you get right down to it, when it comes to spitting and speeding, you have a choice. You can drive within the speed limit or not, you can keep your bodily fluids to yourself or not; it's entirely up to you. Not so when it comes to immigration. Because of quotas, red tape, lack of information on what the law actually is, visa requirements that the holder must leave the country every so often, many people who lack a visa actually do NOT have a choice between being here legally and being here illegally. They can be here illegally or not at all. That fact is the crux of the problem. That fact is the ONLY reason we have people without legal standing. To eliminate the problem, all we have to do is provide a LEGAL PATHWAY, whether it leads to citizenship or temporary worker status. Worse yet, so many of the people who chant "illegal is illegal" have no problem with trahsing the US Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land.

Also tired of the "I'm supporting them with my taxes and their taking my job" arguments. Fact is non-citizens are MORE likely citizens to be engaged in the work force. Fact is non-citizens are not eligible for welfare. Fact is, it is mainly US citizens without insurance who drive up medical costs by not paying their bills (and health care reform has FINALLY addressed this issue). Fact is, non-citizens pay more in taxes than they take out in terms of government services (to the tune of $470 million per year in Texas, the only state that has bothered to study the issue), and their participation in the economy creates more jobs for others (adding over $17 billion annually to the state GDP in Texas). Fact is, non-citizens are LESS likely to be incarcerated than US citizens (3.5% incarceration rate for citizen males aged 18 to 39 versus 0.7% incarceration rate for non-citizen Mexican males in the same age group).

Reagan's amnesty program did not keep people from coming to America outside the system, because after granting citizenship to those already here, it relied entirely on border enforcement, which clearly DOES NOT WORK. Providing a LEGAL pathway open to those who come here and fill needed job opportunities would eliminate the need to spend trillions on a border fence that can be climbed, tunneled under, or broken through when no one is looking. And when we stop wasting government resources trying to catch people whose only crime is wanting to live in freedom, work, and pay taxes like the rest of us, we can devote those resources to real criminals, such as the people who smuggle drugs and the citizen addicts who buy those drugs.

Finally, sick and tired of hearing "AZ had to act because the US Govt. did not." The AZ law does NOTHING to protect the border or address any of the issues surrounding immigration policy. All it does is make people feel good by believing that someone (anyone who "looks" or "sounds" like a non-citizen) will be punished, and who cares whether a law is constitutional as long as people who "look" or "sound" like me don't have to follow it. It gives us someone to blame for all our problems, and, because they lack legal status, the people we blame are not able to defend themselves. The Third Reich had Jews and Gypsies, we have non-citizens.

"So tired of hearing "illegal is illegal." Because there is no rational basis to support an unworkable immigration policy"

Until we actually try to enforce it how do you know?

"Speeding, spitting, parking for longer than 15 minutes in a loading zone, and cursing in public are illegal in most places, too."

These are typically traffic infractions & petty offences and are punishable by fines. Immigration violations are typically misdemeanors & felonies which are typically arrestable offences.

"Fact is non-citizens are MORE likely citizens to be engaged in the work force."

And with unemployment at record levels for legal citizens how is that a good thing?

"Fact is non-citizens are not eligible for welfare."

Unless they practice identity theft, which the rates of are currently skyrocketing.

"To eliminate the problem, all we have to do is provide a LEGAL PATHWAY, whether it leads to citizenship or temporary worker status."

Both of those things already exist, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 gives a path to legal immigration & work visa's have always been available. Yes there are a limited number of both available, but as it has been stated many times if there were less illegal aliens in this country more of both would be available.

"Fact is, it is mainly US citizens without insurance who drive up medical costs by not paying their bills"

From the USA Today "In Texas, where the state comptroller estimates illegal immigrants cost hospitals $1.3 billion in 2006"

"and their participation in the economy creates more jobs for others (adding over $17 billion annually to the state GDP in Texas)"

And after that is deducted still costs Texas $16.4 billion annually.

"Fact is, non-citizens are LESS likely to be incarcerated than US citizens (3.5% incarceration rate for citizen males aged 18 to 39 versus 0.7% incarceration rate for non-citizen Mexican males in the same age group)."

Since we have no accurate numbers as far as number off illegal aliens in the country including age & sex of them that is purely speculation.

"Reagan's amnesty program did not keep people from coming to America outside the system"

On this we agree, if anything amnesty just sent the wrong message that is is OK the break the law because millions were rewarded for doing so.

"Finally, sick and tired of hearing "AZ had to act because the US Govt. did not." The AZ law does NOTHING to protect the border or address any of the issues surrounding immigration policy."

Having lived in AZ for 20 years I have to agree that not enough was being done by the federal government. Before the law even went into effect many illegal aliens fled the state, some even self deporting to avoid incarceration. To me that sounds pretty effective.

Sorry I didn't have time to reply to all of your statements but I hope this clarifies some of the key issues.

PragmaticToAFault...May I ask you one thing? What would you propose we do moving forward to resolve this issue? What would your plan be? Whine? Bit*ch? Kick? Scream? Let me propose something to you. Instead of letting everybody know how "Illegal" it is and stating the OBVIOUS, why don't you give us somewhat of a detailed plan on how YOU would deal with this ongoing issue. Would you provide a concise and clear path to citizenship or "send them all back"...and why. What would you do about border security and how? Instead of trying to enlighten everybody on how you "feel" about "Illegals" and what "threat" they propose, why not debate and throw ideas back and forth on what the best way in your view this should be handled. Don't be such a carbon copy of your republican friends in congress that have no ideas just rocks to throw. And yes, you are being simple minded until you prove otherwise.

I don't see you posting any suggestions either, Br8y, and I have in many other places.

No, I don't support the wholesale deportation of 12-20 million people, I've stated that in this thread at least once. That's simply impossible, and you're a partisan hack for thinking that's what ALL people who don't agree with you think.

Priority number one must be to secure the borders. Wholesale deportation of illegals with OTHER criminal charges must ensue. And there needs to be a way for otherwise law-abiding illegal immigrants (beyond the original crime of coming here illegally) to get on the right side of this - but NOT by getting to the front of the line. I support a national ID card to end the employment of illegal immigrants, but I do NOT support a guest-worker program. We have 15 million unemployed American citizens, we do not need to be bringing people from other countries in. If guest worker status is awarded to those already here, fine. No more.

We are a country of laws. Period. Without them, we have chaos as we have now.

I am so sick of ignorant people simply parroting the tired lies of FoxNews and their (empty) talking heads, e.g.: "Obama simply refuses to enforce federal immigration law." The fact is that more illegals have been deported in the past year under Obama than were deported during the last year of the Bush administration. Yet Fox never took Bush to task for trying to make deals with big employers that hire illegals, in order to allow undocumented aliens to work here legally.

Hey Richard - I am so sick and tired of people like you!! OUR BORDERS ARE NOT SECURE YOU IDIOT!!! The man INSULTED THE AMERICANS WHEN FELIPE CALDERON WAS HERE!!!So yes keep licking Obama's A$$...YOU GO BOY

I'm I missing something? I though Obama sent more troops to the border. Aren't there more troops there now then their were during Bush's presidency?

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Richard - The conservatives (including Fox) did yell when Bush and others tried Amesty as a solution.

Charles Arlington Heights, IL Yes, you are right! and Rick yes, people probably did yell, but I never heard a word on Fox - see I do watch Fox all the time and did back when Bush was President, as well......little did I know how wrong some of the people on Fox actually were. I started fact checking eveything I hear now and heard then on Fox.....I soon found out Fox News was and is a joke.....well maybe not all but at least most are. So I have since the election picked up watching MSNBC - to get both sides - I still fact check everything and still find Fox New to be wrong or at least reporting half-truths most all the time. I understand why now - it certainly appears to stir up your base......of which, I am proud to say I am no longer a member, thank you. I figure you have to stir up the base with lies and untruths - and with fear - because you sure don't have anything else to offer. At least I haven't heard anything from the Repubs on the hill other than 'N'. I need to hear exactly what they would have done difference. I fear we would be worse off.....Sorry but true. Dems in 2010 - 2012 -OMGosh could you even imagine if the other side had won - It is the stuff of nightmares! :)) Love and Peace.

Julie-77777

"Hey Richard - I am so sick and tired of people like you!! OUR BORDERS ARE NOT SECURE YOU IDIOT!!! The man INSULTED THE AMERICANS WHEN FELIPE CALDERON WAS HERE!!!So yes keep licking Obama's A$$...YOU GO BOY"

So, then, those 12 MILLION illegals got here on Obama's watch? Damned that guy.

So I have since the election picked up watching MSNBC - to get both sides

Bwahhhhhahahahahhahahahahhahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!That has to be one of the most inane comments I have ever read on the vine. Especially on one of the most loving of liberal lovefests the First Read column. Bwahahahahhahahahahahhaha!!!!!!

Let's use another news media...like ABC. Title:

Obama 'Scheming' on Immigrant Amnesty? Memo Draws Republican Fire
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/immigration-memo-republicans-accuse-obama-administration-scheming-amnesty/story?id=11288210&page=2

I would agree that FOX only reports parts of a story, but so does NBC, so they are both playing the mind games. Always read further into any news story regardless of the source.

And the troops have been placed on hold at the moment, so they are not currently on the US border. Even if they were to be on the border, they are only going to be there for a few months, so what good is that? Additionally, troops on a border does not help enforce the under resourced ICE agency, which looks inside the country for violators of immigration policies (i.e. overstayed visas, border jumpers).

Charles,

Bush sent 6000 troops to the boarder States for two year until the Border Patrol can hire enough to relieve the Troops. Obama is sending a 1000 or close to it. Of those 1000ish troops most are Admin Soldiers, so yeah, Obama is 1. Not shutting down the boarder, 2. Protecting Americans, his number 1 job, 3. Sueing a State that's doing what Obama refuses to do.

MSNBC - to get both sides

The article I posted above is now on Newsvine/msnbc http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38490186/

but you cannot fine the article on msnbc very easily (don't think they want you to find it), so I wanted to provided everyone with "both sides" of the news. And if for some reason that doesn't work here it is on newsvine

http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2010/07/30/4785911-agency-weighs-skirting-congress-on-immigration#comments

State taxes usurp Federal Law. You realize with this judges decision, we no longer are recquired to pay them?

Articile 16 of the Constitution about taxation only concerns the Federal Government and not states.

Reap what you sow.

It really doesn't matter how many criminal aliens Obama deports. If the borders aren't secure, they just come back. Need proof-these happened in Washington State (That's a little ways from the Mexican border) in one weekend.

http://www.brian-blackwell.com/2010/05/illegal-deported-5-times-rapes-woman.html

Oh, wait, there's a follow up story

http://www.brian-blackwell.com/2010/05/illegal-deported-9-times-rapes-woman.html

And during the same weekend:

http://deadenders.wordpress.com/2010/06/01/stupid-bastards/

Thank you Julie. The best part of this whole mess is that it is recieving attention...lots of attention. There will be no sweeping this issue under the political rug. The worst thing the average American can do is ...NOTHING. Apathy is playing into the socialist's hands. Pay attention everyday to everything thats going on. Get vocal, get involved, get the facts of every issue. And by all means get out there and vote.

Edward,

Actually apathy plays into the hands of the business owners, the greater majority of them Repub, who make millions and billions in profit off the backs of these hard working people that they can keep at wages below minimum with no benefits. Actually making these people legal will give them the ability to complain about and have arrested the business owners who have been exploiting them for their labor and keeping them in dangerous working situations at extremely low pay. If it were not for the jobs they would not be here, that is just a well known fact and THAT is where some of the focus needs to be, not just the border, not mass deportations, but hit the problem at the roots: The Money. Any time we run into a problem where money is the motivator you can find the Repubs backing the people that are profiting from the situation. Take away the money factor and hardly anyone would come to the States because they would know that there are no jobs for them. That is why they come in the first place: they know that they can find unscrupulous employers that will give them wages that, while very low here, are still more than the nothing that they are making in their home nations. Many of them were trying to scrape a living from the soil or working as a virtual slave for rich land owners that pay them even less than they would get here. Take the profit motive away from the unscrupulous people that hire them and they will begin the exodus back to where they came from, or try to become legal here. Bet on it!

Why not do all three??? Seal the border, deport all illegals, and fine (heavily) any business that knowingly hired them. Call it the Illegal alien TRIAD. (LOL)

Edward-1075991...I agree it is recieving alot of attention so maybe now dems and repubs can get together and do what Americans want and find a practical/logical solution which will have to include both "path to citizenship" and border security. What I don't agree with you is that apathy plays into socialist hands,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,It has actually been playing into the hands of the conservatives for years until we woke up and elected a man with the capacity and patience to handle all the issues on the table right now. We payed attention, got vocal, got involved and elected President Barack Obama. And by all means we will get out the vote.

PS,,,you stand for the status quo...Obama IS real change. Call it what you want to but he is what America needs and he will be reelected in 2012.

In case you, too, didn't get the memo, Illegal means illegal. Google the word "illegal" if you have to, it has nothing to do with prejudice, race, religion or any of your other talking points. It has to do with one thing, and one thing only: the law. Illegal means against the law, period.

We, as a country, have the right just like every other country on this planet to decide who comes in to this country and more importantly, who gets to stay and it has less than nothing to do with race. The fact that this particular issue appears to people not bright enough to understand cause and effect to be related to "race" is simply because the Mexican government's lack of ability in policing their own country has resulted in Mexican drug dealers taking full advantage of our pourous border. "Mexican" is not a race, and you should really be ashamed of yourself for thinking it is. If we had a similar problem with Canadian drug dealers, what would your excuse be then, since Canada is about 92% white, hmmmmm?

Deal with it.

Oh, and read the law. It specifically prohibits, in four places AND the amendment, racial profiling.

I'm going to AZ on vacation - BUYCOTT.

Hey LDbean - Why don't you read the bill before spewing off?, so come on down with the rest of the illegals from Los Angelesl!! This state will not tolerate subsidizing illegals with their FREE MEDICAL CARE, FREE BABIES, FREE HOUSING, FOODSTAMPS, WELFARE, FREE EDUCATION, AND EVEN FREE DIAPERS, OH, lets not forget how many illegals are working with stolen ID's. Every warehouse and plant they raided was loaded with them!!! I got news for you, these are jobs many Americans would love to have right about now!!! I hope they are filled with US citizens ASAP!!!!!!!!

Well Just look at the Mexican borders, honestly... Who do you see coming in?

Go to Arizona and protest, and deny the Unites States Laws that exist.

Maybe you can apply these U.S. laws in your protest:

http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t05t08+5142+31++%28unauthor

http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t05t08+5147+31++%28unauthorized%20alien%29%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20

http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t05t08+5148+18++%28unauthorized%20alien%29%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20

http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t05t08+5152+31++%28unauthori

http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t05t08+5156+31++%28unauthori

http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t05t08+5099+2++%28section%20

And another thing, go to AZ. I hope that big ole' sherriff puts your @SS in one of those tent cities!!

the only arguement you liberals and pro-illegas have is racism. how about law? race is not a crime!

LDBean

Racism at it's worse. Next Arizona, the state tht joined the confederacy to extend slavery will attempt something else to villify and justify overt racism and abuse of a peoples easily identified by color.

_______________________________

Bean-brain, you must have a Liberal Art's degree in American History:

Mexico relinquished control of Arizona to the United States in 1863. Arizona became a state on February 14, 1912. It was the last of the 48 contiguous states to be admitted to the union.

"LDBean

Racism at it's worse."

Please LDBean that is so bogus, the facts are most Illegals are from Mexico and South America, being politically correct won't even allow people like you to acknowledge that fact which is why most Americans think that the whole racists drivel is so lame, it is really irrelevant where they came from they are here illegally and should be arrested and sent home like the law of the land demands, and the cheap traitorous bastards that hire them should be arrested as well, then and only then will the problem right itself. Save your racism nonsense for when you are having tea and crumpets at the country club it don't cut much hay in the real world.

LDBean, post the wording in the law that says it only applies to Hispanics? More left lies to stir up fear in the Hispanics to gain votes.

If you are here illegally, you should be prosecuted, plain and simple. Enforce the current laws and secure the boarder. Why would you not agree with this?

why is it that every time some one has the guts to tell things the way they are they are racist" I personally am so sick of that word-just because some one doesn't agree with and doesn't work on the same single brain cell as you THEY ARE NOT RACIST come up with another line-that one is worn out, abused and down right degrading.

The only reason the Hispanics are the major issue is that 81 per cent of the illegals are Hispanics.

LD Bean, you are sick, hateful, racist being. And, btw, just what year did AZ join the Confederacy? Think you're just a little off there, boy.

LD Bean - exactly how far up your @$$ is your head? When you go to Arizona to support the protestors against this law, be sure to visit the border so you can see that it is Mexicans crossing the border illegally in droves...not Euopean illegals. Be sure you get a good look at the destruction they cause to American citizen's property as they pass through. Visit the graves of the Americans that have been killed by the illegals immigrants. When you've walked a mile in Arizona's shoes, come back here and share your experience. Oh, and just take all of the money you earn on your job, assuming you work, and put that towards the costs these people cause while in our country illegally, and then I can have some of tax dollars back and have lower health insurance premiums.

You probably aren't on anymore, but perhaps you could at least take a basic history lesson before you post.

Arizona didn't even become a state until 1912. The Civil War (i.e. Confederacy) ended in 1865 so it would have been difficult for them to promote slavery, wouldn't it?

You are a product of the public schools, aren't you?

Umm Arizona became a State in 1912. Kinda funny how how people are stupid enough to not realize that Arizona became a state decades after the Civil War.

All illegal aliens need to hit the road. Wherever they come from. Russia, Poland, Sweden, Mexico, Haiti. Leave the way you came in. Might as well pick up that trash you dropped in the desert on your way in. Thanks, Bye.

Ya Know Edward, the Native Americans would certainly say the same thing about US, and Many of the illegal immigrants from down South just happen to be Native Americans, so your statement begs some rationality and logic to be applied. Besides, how are YOU going to move some 20 million People??

"Besides, how are YOU going to move some 20 million People??"

1 bus load at a time.

Actually like was shown in Arizona just before the law went into effect many self deported to avoid prosecution.

Amen AngelicaS!!

The problem is that the AZ law is unconstitutional. The President made an oath to uphold the constitution so it is his duty to fight this law.

Only the Federal Government may pass laws dealing with immigration compliance.

Republican Lindsey Grahm ended the prospect of addressing immigration this year when he threatened to pull-out of bipartisan climate change talks.

Therefore it is the Republicans that refuse to address immigration and hide behind this unconstitutional AZ law.

Charles,

If you want to stretch the facts to say the AZ law is unconstitutional, then I would have to say impeach Obama on the grounds he is not upholding America's immigration laws on the books today. Go ahead, read the Federal immigration laws and tell me they too are unconstitutional. After all, both are very similar.

Apparently, Charles, the law is NOT unconstitutional or the judge in this case would have enjoined the entire law, not just three sections.

And a temporary injunctionon on those three sections does not confirm unconstitutionality.

In fact, oddly enough, one section that was enjoined requires legal immigrants to carry their green cards. The Federal immigration laws do the exact same thing. Is the Federal law therefore unconstitutional?

Just because YOU think it's unconstitutional, does not make it so.

Dude. The point is that the Federal government needs to address the problem not the states.

We will see how it plays out in court but my guess is at the end of the day parts of the AZ law will be struck down as unconstitutional.

Prag. Like I just posted, we'll see about the unconstitutionality. My understanding is that the only the Federal government (not the states) can make laws dealing with immigration compliance. That why this law is unconstitutional and the Federal law is not.

What parts Charles? I would like to hear your legal dissertation that supports your "unconstitutional" beliefs.

"Dude", that particular issue - Fed versus State - was barely addressed in the opinion and in fact there have been numerous precedents wherein the courts have upheld the states' rights to enforce Federal law. That is ALL the AZ law did, was give AZ law enforcement clearly defined permission to enforce Federal law - on LESS stringent grounds than the Federal laws themselves.

And what, exactly, would you suggest AZ do in the meantime? The Federal government has refused to accept its responsbility on this issue for 24 years. This law was five years in the making.

Exactly how much longer would like the people in AZ to wait?

Charles,

ahh, so States are not allowed to create laws that support Federal laws? I would think this is a good thing. Every State in our Union have different demographics which would require addressing through State laws.

Exactly my thoughts too Prag!

I think we agree that the Federal Government needs to act.

It could have happend this year.

Charles---

If you know anything about the law, you know that Arizona state law enforcement has always had the authority to enforce EXISTING FEDERAL LAW against ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. So, ENFORCE THE LAW NOW!

If you read Judge Bolten's opinion accurately, you will note Footnote 12 , which states that, "Many law enforcement officials already have the discretion to verify immigration status if they have reasonable suspicion in the absence of S.B. 1070 . . ."

So the injunction was directed to the eliminating the "REQUIREMENT" to check immigration status. Under existing law, Arizona officials previously had and still have the "DISCRETION" to verify immigration status. And, they SHOULD EXERCISE THAT DISCRETION ABUNDANTLY TO CONFRONT THE PROBLEMS OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION!

Come on people, the Government has always had ultimate power over the states - and the states have always had the right and power to inforce the federal laws within their own state.......The states just don't have the right to make new laws that over over steps federal law.....The AZ law only partcially over stepped it bounds - that is the part that the Judge is pulled out. The part that appeared to prejudge people based on race or ethnic background....The government did not oppose anything else.

And the President and Congress did try to pass stronger immigration legislation here very recently - um but it was a Republican that shot it down as usual......So don't get on this administrations case for not trying to more...Just the facts - go check em.

Maxi - the immigration legislation is still in the House and has not made it passes any subcommittes, so it has not been voted on. The reason, all parties, both Dems and Repubs don't want to address the hot topic of immigration. Just look at the media, this posting and the people outrage.

You need to check your own facts by looking at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.4321:

So you can get on the case of the Administration and Congress for not doing anything, it's both parties.

By the way, the current bill gives what some are calling "a path for amnesty', which is a huge controversy right now and why they have tabled this as no Dem or Repub wants to lose their seat if they come out saying where they stand on the issue.

Just the facts!! I looked them up ;)

Well put AngelicaS. You are correct. Maricopa County Sheriff Joe and his Deputies are all certified under 287G by the Feds and are allowed to enforce the Federal Laws. This is why nothing changes for him. This applies to other law enforcement agencies as well in the state. Not all law enforcement in Arizona have this ability but many do. In addition, some cities have policies not to enforce the laws. SB 1070 was aimed to force all law enforcement in Arizona to enforce the laws of the land. It was to require police to do the job they are already supposed to do. It give citizens ability to sue if the laws are not being enforced.

I live in Arizona and so everyone knows we love the Hispanic culture. It is not an issue about Hispanic's or any race. It has to do with the fact that we are tired of people dying in the desert, people getting kidnapped, raped and more. For goodness sake their are sign's in the desert telling people not to go hiking because it is a drug corridor and is to dangerous. We cannot enjoy all the state has to offer because it is being over run with horrible crimes. We need the Federal Government to do more and they won't. The troops Obama promised where supposed to be here by August 1st and now it is delayed. Announcement came out just after the Judge ruling. (Interesting huh??)

I get it "Employers Sanctions", and I feel for you. I will continue to stand for you and your fellow Arizonans! Believe me!

It is offensive that some people try to make the issue about "race" (although "Hispanic" is not a race), national origin, ethnicity. Americans are not xenophobes. We do, however, want the law enforced. We don't want for anyone to be above the rule of law. We embrace LEGAL IMMIGRATION. We oppose ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION!

Charles Arlington Heights, IL

The problem is that the AZ law is unconstitutional. The President made an oath to uphold the constitution so it is his duty to fight this law.

Only the Federal Government may pass laws dealing with immigration compliance.

Republican Lindsey Grahm ended the prospect of addressing immigration this year when he threatened to pull-out of bipartisan climate change talks.

Therefore it is the Republicans that refuse to address immigration and hide behind this unconstitutional AZ law.

Article 2 section III. The President will uphold all laws of the United States.

During a speech, the President declared that Immigration is un-enforceable.

Sorry, he is not upholding the law.

Maxi - Speaking of facts.... Perhaps YOU should check some of the facts in this situation. I would suggest you start by reading online the numerous letters sent by Gov. Brewer to Pres. Obama pleading for assistance in controlling the illegal alien issue in AZ over the past 1 and 1/2 years. She did not ask for immigration legislation. She requested assistance in enforcing the law as it stood in order to protect AZ citizens from the problems resulting from the illegal invasion of her state.

Gov. Brewer received no response and no assistance, despite the fact that she clearly outlined the serious problems developing in her state - problems which directly affect the safety/well-being of the citizens of Arizona.

Despite all the controversy over this issue, which is mounting to the boiling point, our president has STILL done nothing in this regard. He has talked about doing something but, instead, chose to bring suit against AZ rather than enforcing the law as it stands.

THAT is the issue. And it's a very clear commentary on his agenda.

MN-748207 - Please prove your point. Please provide some links to these 'letters' so we can see them for ourselves.

Pietro, Columbus, Ohio perhaps this will help.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/06/jan-brewer-illegal-immigrants-obama-letter.html

or this,

http://azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/PR_040610_LtrToPOTUSBorderSecurity.pdf

Thank you, Erictheredherring. I will check out the articles you've posted.

Pietro - I believe you can find them at Jan Brewer's website. I had to look them up, so I'm sure you can manage it, too, if you are truly interested.

MN - thank you for your response. I actually AM interested in seeing what was written, and I will go and take a peek.

Anna Molly:

I was talking to a lawyer friend (not an oxymoron) who said that Federal Judges like to get it right the first time as it is an embarrassment (and a dumb dot) when they are overturned. I understand your point about Supreme Court judges and their political bias, but I don't want to be so cynical to believe the entire legal system is a crap shoot in terms of what judge you get.

Was the reasoning of this judge...reasonable?

Ron the entire legal system is a crap shoot in terms of what judge you get, jeez dude where you been living, why do you think the wealthy spend millions "judge shopping", our justice system is corrupt, our government is corrupt, if you have enough money you can do anything you want in this country legal or otherwise, that's not my cynical opinion it is an easily proven fact, the reason lady justice has that blindfold on is so she can't identify who slipped her that bag of cash under the table in a court of law, she can say she couldn't see who it was, get it dude.

Anna - Have you kept up with who actually reviewed this law for consititutionality? I know they where not Supreme Court Justices but they where Consititutional Law Professors. All agreed on the language and the representation of the law. I think this is a waste of time and effort and just shows clearly that the Obama Administration does not want to enforce immigration laws. Oh they are making a show of force now but where was the offer of National Guardsmen before the law was passed? As Obama says it is time for Change and the ways of old are not working anymore so let Arizona try it there way and see if works. The feds cannot do everything because they can not afford to hire enough people to do everything. Arizona's law simply put the resources to the problem that the Federal Government cannot. After all those Guardsmen belong to the states and not the Federal Government.

Ron - Who knows the actual reason this judge did what she did. Was it pressure from upon the hill or pressure from elsewhere or was it the right thing to do? Although I personally do not agree with the ladder statement we will never really know it was done. However just because it was done does not make it right. Anna is probably correct in saying if the law is looked at from a consititution perspective the current ruling will be overturned. It is simple illegal immigrants have no rights under the consititution there for acts against them are not protected under it.

In the end I believe this law will get through, the only damage will be how many moved or got away to other states before it happens. It is sad but alot of illegals will move to ajoining states now pushing the problem further away from the border and making it harder to enforce laws.

Thanks to the Obama Administration, even though they maybe deporting more (which come right back), we are now faced with a wider radius which will have to be policed.

One last note on the National Guardsman. For those who actually read the article this will not come as any surprise but the Guardsman are not going to enforce any laws they are simply going to support the Border Patrol agents. Basically they are poorly trained (they are shop keepers and Computer engineers, with a week or two of this is what we are doing training) backup that will have to be told and managed by a group that is already under manned with inadequite resources. Remember they are send National Guardsman and there equipment not meeting the needs of the Border Patrol agents. Sad really, because most Americans will look at this action as a wonderful thing, the government stepping in and take care of it when really they are simply putting in a show of force so that people will rally against a law that has a chance at putting a large dent into the problem.

It was reasonable, Ron. But it's a question of law, which the appeals court -- and ultimately the Supreme Court -- will get to review de novo; and I like to play resident cynic, so just let me continue to wallow in it for a while. You don't have to agree, and for me the benefit is that being cynical makes it much easier for me to insert sly comments about ladles and bathtubs into the conversation. But there's a reason why certain judges, certain appeals courts, and certain Supreme Courts have reputations for being disingenuous and results-oriented. And I've just stated the reason.

What part of Unconstitutional do you not understand?

He doesn't UNderstand UN. Except probably as used in gUN.

HEY LIBS, I have a great idea. Let the government let you fork over ALL your paychecks ( that is, if you actually work ) and let me keep more of mine. I stated that the Feds blocked some of the provisions of the law based on constitutionality. My point was that race should not and does not play any part in this bill and is a ploy to give these ILLEGALS amnesty so they can be good Dems like you!

Clarke, you can use that throwaway line all you want but the fact remains that a temporary injunction does not confirm unconstitutionality. In reality, if one of the aspects of the law that was enjoined is unconstitutional - the law that says legal immigrants must carry their green cards on them at all times - then so is the existing Federal immigration law that says the same exact thing.

The entire law was not enjoined - and it could have been.

@ Clarke - Probably the part where it matches the federal law.

I guess we can't have a similar law than the feds and enforce it. I guess no state can encroach in any sphere of federal influence. I guess every truck driver who crosses state lines and gets a speeding ticket should claim that falls under interstate commerce and can only be enforced by federal officers.

I guess CA should be sued for legalizing pot since it's against federal law to posses it. I guess CA should be sued for sanctuary cites since it's against federal law to be an illegal alien and so that makes them accomplices.

Well whatever happens, this will get much uglier before it gets better. I suspect that with the way this wave is washing over the US (Both for and against) there is going to be hell to pay before this is over.

You are correct. States have the Constitutional right to legislate in any sphere where that power is not specifically granted to federal authority, and it has been upheld that federal government has domain over immigration policy. This includes enforcement.

The federal government can ask for help, but the states does not have authority to intervene itself into the process.

"What part of illegal don't you understand? ILLEGAL is ILLEGAL"

I guess it's the ill part, because every time I hear this argument it makes me ill.

Hey Puss rebel super patriot. No one in the administration has spoken of amnesty. Provide facts for your arguments. That said:

1. Please provide facts where the feds want to take more of your paycheck. I seem to recall that they feds are taking Less witholding. So compare the tax tables from 2009, 2009.

2 Please provide a definition of "socialism." As opposed to "corporate socialism."

3. How are we going to pay for enforcing current immigration law. How 'bout a "Special Border Enforcement" surtax next year. Would you support that? I would!

Lastly illegals don't and cannot vote. Please go back to high school and take a basic civics class.

What a maroon!

When you say "racism", what race are you talking about? Hispanics are not a race.

Since Hispanics are not a race, what are Hispanics, what is race, and what is racism? Would it make you feel better if we said bigotry instead of racism?

No, it would be better if you drop the pretense and deflection away from the actual issue:

Legal versus illegal.

Enforcement of the law, versus non-enforcement.

It would not make be feel better. Bigotry would be accurate. Racism is where some feels that one race os superior to another. Here is a quote from Abraham Lincoln that demostrates racism:

'There is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favour of having the superior position assigned to the white race'

Source for the quote in 8.12: http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/sciences/lifescience/humanraces/RacesMan/RacesMan.htm

Rick,

You may want to tell that to La Raza (The Race).

Gneisenau Seriously?!? Get real!

TorpedoYou Whew! Finally A voice of Reason ! :)) I'm with you if I don't know I look it up or fact check......I don't automatically assume what is said by either party is 100% correct.....But I have to say the Liberal, are often correct. And I don't like anyone who spreads things that are not true.....which is why I switched parties in the 08 election. And am so glad I did since all I am hearing these last 18 months from the Republicans is "N" - even if they like it......really sad.

Maxie, you would serve yourself and this country better if you would recognize your own partisanship.

You're basically stating that people on this vine, who do not agree with you, are therefore Republicans.

What happened to that tried and true liberal exaltation of not stereotyping?

Does that high horse only get ridden when you can accuse someone else of doing it?

"tried and true liberal exaltation of not stereotyping?"

I don't know, PTAF. I've read a lot of your posts today because I really need to get educated learn the real deal and all that; and it sounds suspiciously like you're the one stereotyping to me.

Pragmatic,

Someone hopped right back in the saddle. Talk about riding into one.

Good call.

Indeed, Bob.

Anna, perhaps you should google "stereotype". Once you have, point out exactly where I've stereotyped you, please, and I will either clarify or retract.

The comment I directed toward you to which I believe you are referring was in response to YOUR comment implying - completely off topic and irrelevant - that another poster was more eloquent than I. My response to you was that your opinion on my eloquence means nothing to me, and that since up till that point you had added nothing to the actual discussion of the AZ law, perhaps you needed to do more reading on the topic.

There is a difference between stereotyping, and using the available information regarding a specific issue to draw a conclusion. You appeared short on information regarding the law with which to frame a response, I simply suggested you read up if necessary.

Everybody keeps complaining that President Obama is not enforcing the immigration laws...Where Was All The Screaming During the Bush Admin Then?? Why have you waited until now...Oh Yeah, you need something to distract the masses and get them upset just before an election. Ya know, we have seen this game before, and it did not help you at all during the last two elections, now did it??

Maybe ... We all need a "Get out of Jail" Free card.

My property taxes just went up $400... Can I pay these at the end of my life? Just deduct them from my funeral expenses and veteran's benefits.

Why now? Why didn't they get off their fat behinds 6 years ago or 10 years ago or just after Ronald Reagan gave millions amnesty? A

Because they didn't get off their fat behinds then, they should continue to NOT get off their fat behinds NOW?

Really?

Kellysview

Why do you think obama doesn't want to control the border??? Could he be involved in the drug cartel?? There really is no other reason that comes to mind...

_______________________

Whoa! Just when I thought I had heard it ALL...

That 'view' makes the JoAnna Smith's of the world look semi-lucid!!

Congrats Kelly - YOU win this weeks... crazier than an sh!thouse rat AWARD!

Hahahah.... False premise followed by an argument from ignorance... NICE!

Hey, Feisty- speaking of JoAnna,-I'm away on vacation next week. Can you do me a favor, and keep that hideous thing under control while I'm gone? IF not, I understand. It really is a pretty tough job.

Hey Drive-By - you're talking about our resident LARGE mouth 'a@@' right?

I think TRR's got it covered as they are doing some 'hook & release' fishing down in KY!

If she does manage to show up... no worries... we got the fly swatters!

Enjoy your vaca!

Ps: You know I think she's got a thing for you - did you notice how jealous she was about you taking me to that 'malt' shop? Still can't stop LMAO on THAT one! Where the hell is a malt shop these days?

Nope envy green is not a color she wears well...

Congratulations redhead, You just won today's award for inflammatory remarks in violation of Newsvine's Code of Ethics.

Of course, you could answer this question: Did Obama provide full disclosure of the financial sources for his campaign in 2008 as he once promised ? Or did he back off, move himself away from Federal matching funds (which eliminated the disclosure requirement) and RUN HIS CAMPAIGN on FINANCIAL RESOUCES AND CONTRIBUTIONS FROM SOURCES UNKNOWN ???

By the way, being feisty does not mean you are smarter than everyone else or that your opinion gives you the right to name-calling. It simply proves that YOU THINK YOU ARE SMARTER.

FRR- looks like I'm going to have to owe you one when YOU go on vacation. These hideous 'things' are coming out of the woodwork now that the teabag Republicans know their azz is grazz!

Let me put on a stack of '45's, roll up my cigs in my shirtsleeve, and ponder the malt-shop issue, 'K?

@Jim

WTF are you Jim? First Reads rendition of Barney Fife?

Thanks for validating that:

A.) You are fine with Kelly implying that President Obama is somehow connected to the Mexican drug cartel.... OR

B.) You believe it yourself!

NOW ....I GOT it!

Funny thing is you remind me more of Otis than Barney! :0)))

Let me put on a stack of '45's, roll up my cigs in my shirtsleeve, and ponder the malt-shop issue, 'K?

_________________

LOL Deal!

Do be a dear and gives me a little notice to I can take the poodle skirt to the cleaners will ya! ;0)

Jim,

I think you're correct. I'll probabaly be accused that I support that comment too.

Feisty,

Keep being Classy-WOW

Feisty/DBO

You both will likely eventually be banned, and the vines will be a better place for it. You have added nothing to this discussion besides name calling and COH violations - that up till this point, had largely been avoided.

Enjoy, while you still can.

Really Pragmatic? And what is your OPINION of some of the posts from folks like JoAnnaSmith (sex with sheep implicaitons) and CU Farley?

Why do you care what my opinion is, DBO? Obviously, only yours, Feisty's and people with whom you agree matter.

If you're asking my opinion about people who post nonsense, I typically ignore their nonsense but I made an exception in this case. Or I refute the nonsense with facts and/or flaws in their logic. I'm not familiar with the poster "JoAnnaSmith" but COH is COH. If she's breaking COH with her posts, is it incumbant upon you to see if you can sink to that level as well? Or, is she just having the unmitigated gall to disagree with you and Feisty et als happy little circular firing squad?

That's all the questions I have, did you have any other questions?

Heavens no. It's pretty clear where you stand on dissenting opinions of others. May I go now?

Redhead failed to answer the question as expected. Did Obama disclose the sources of his campaign financing ??

Redhead threw out more inflammatory comments as expected. Does the redhead work for the government ???

No, DBO, it's apparently not clear.

I welcome dissenting opinions. Do you?

No, you may NOT go.

Yes.... another thought does come to mind, Kellysview regarding President Obama:

"Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely." Lord Acton, Great Britain, 19th Century Philosopher and Scholar

Now fiesty she has my vote for the rat award LOL. now both sides of this cause got to know that is way out there. she does recieve a 10 for originality i have not heard that one from anyone yet and she does bring comic relief to this discussion.

Beverly:

Waht part of the amendment do you not understand?

"immunities of citizens of the United States"

Since when are illegals citizens? Get a clue!!!

Yes we do understand the Constitution and that's why there are ways to ammend it when parts of it should no longer apply. Illegals come here just to have babies so they are citizens and then use our welfare systems. That needs to stop.

Illegal aliens are not "subject to the jurisdiction" therefore they are not protected by the constitution.

Americans here have babies that use our welfare system. The illegal parent doesn't get to use that system and if they tried to use welfare, they would have to do it illegally, most wouldn't risk getting caught. But many do use illegal SSN's to get a job and actually pay money into the system that they most likely will never get back. Of course they are still here illegally and some are criminials that need to be dealt with. But I doubt that if you take the metrics based on socio-economic status rather than race I'd be that they are not more likely to be criminals than any other segement of the poor.

Feel free to distribute this information to any one as a public service. This is the law of our land, that is, the United States of America.

From the United States Code:

http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t05t08+5142+31++%28unauthor

http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t05t08+5147+31++%28unauthorized%20alien%29%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20

http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t05t08+5148+18++%28unauthorized%20alien%29%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20

http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t05t08+5152+31++%28unauthori

http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t05t08+5156+31++%28unauthori

http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t05t08+5099+2++%28section%20

Unfortunately you can not get to do process until you are detained. I agree that people should not be detained based on looking Hispanic.

Beverly in Chicago Yes Yes Yes! Another Voice of Reason. Fact check always the best policy! Thank you for taking the time to post this.....Amazing, I love it!

Maxi, the Constitution that does NOT apply to illegal aliens amazes you?

Why, have you never read it before?

It's "due process", not "do process" and of course it can't apply until you're arrested, there would be no reason for due process to apply until you are suspected of having broken the law.

That is why there are laws like Miranda, to make people aware of their rights to due process, that occur AFTER the arrest.

The Constitution does NOT state that we are beholden to allow people into this country. Why do you think that?

Consider that acknowledged, and then ask yourself - why is he not trumpeting this from the rooftops?

Answer: because it would offset any political gain he may have achieved with Hispanics via suing AZ. So it's being "quietly" mentioned.

That is the only thing transparent about this administration: its cynical, self-serving politics.

It would be difficult to do worse than the last administration, or the two before that, as regards this issue. The fact is, for a very long time the Dems want the illegal immigrants in as potential future voters and to secure the Hispanic vote and the Reps wanted the cheap labor. Both motivations are catching up with both sides, and neither excuse for inaction is being tolerated anymore.

Dems wanted to address immigration this year. Lindsey Graham threatened to pull of of bi-partisan climate change talks and effectively killed any chance of immigration reform this year.

So. The Dems control the House with a huge majority, the Senate with one vote short of a super-majority AND the Executive, and you're REALLY going to blame Lindsey Graham?

Really?

I blame both parties. No body wants to risk their political future making difficult choices on immigration.

The way I see it you either...

A) deport all illegal immigrants and do massive damage to our economy or...

B) have some kind of amnesty which is extremely unpopular.

Charles,

This about enforcing an existing law not legislating a new one.

It is loathe-some that this administration links the two together and thus holds the American citizens of Arizona hostage by refusing to execute its federal responsibility in order to advance its political agenda.

Bob - Does that mean you pick option A?

Exactly, Bob.

It's in the Constitution, it is an enumerated power and duty of the Federal Government to protect this country and secure its borders.

That has nothing at all to do with immigration, in reality and especially in consideration of what's going on on the Mexican border right now.

Are you guys saying that we should deport all illegal aliens?

I just think that is next to impossible and even if we could do it our economy would pay a huge price.

I also think you are too quick to pin the blame on the Obama administration for this. This problem didn't start in January of 2009.

PragmaticToAFault You're kidding right - Yes the Dems are in the Majority - if the Republicans would quit filibustering literally everything that comes up for a vote in the Senate it wouldn't be just one (1) Republican that killed the bill......it would pass with a simple majority. Besides it's really not so much that he voted against it.....it is the fact that he was for it - said he would vote for it - then at the last minute changed him mind.....typical.

However, I must say there are still some sane Republicans in the Senate - Republicans that are actually concerned about their state and thus votie for their State and not just vote for the party of NO. Otherwise we would have never passed anything.

Are YOU kidding, Maxi? Our government was set up with a bicameral legislature seperate from the executive and judicial for the EXACT purpose of preventing the majority from running roughshod over the minority. The Republicans are doing their jobs, whether you like it or not and the sooner you recognize the fact that just because Democrats say something is a good idea does not make it a good idea, the better off you'll be. The same was true during the first six years of the Bush administration, and the Democrats made good use of the filibuster then. Did you complain? I don't imagine you did, and I can say for myself that I wish they would have filibusted MORE - for the same reason.

Single party control does NOT benefit this country. It didn't during the first two years of the Reagan and Clinton administrations, nor for the six years Bush had Republican majorities. And it is not beneficial now.

You're ragingly partisan, for all your efforts to claim you're not.

By the way, Charles.

Here is a major issue many people have with the "left", to which I assume you belong because of the tone of your posts.

When arguing your point, your side typically erects straw men to try to belittle and demean your opposition. In this case, you have repeated several times your assumption that people in support of the AZ law also support massive deportation.

While I would not be so bold as to speak for everyone else on this thread that supports the AZ law, I will tell you that I for one understand that deporting 12-20 million people simply isn't possible. However, I will not support a "path to citizenship" until the border is secure. In the meantime, I fully support AZ and any other state's right to enforce the laws the Federal government refuses to enforce regarding illegal immigration.

Understand? Everything is not black or white, Charles, and order of operations matters. It matters a lot.

Charles,

The deportation argument is unnecessary obfuscation.

When the house is flooding you don't stop and take an inventory of how much carpet will need to be pulled, how to dry it, or replace, does it need to be treated with microbes, what about he pad, where's the insurance policy, what's the deductible, what's the name of the agent, where's the phone number, etc.

You shut the water off. Then worry about about the carpet and how to handle all the above.

Obama needs to fulfill his federal responsibility and secure the border.

Why do you argue he shouldn't execute his lawfull obligation?

right from the LaRaza handbook? read the law genius

Bull Crap!

I actually believe there is a lot of truth to what some are saying here - Not you Steven B - you really don't know what you are talking about. Don't worry, you are not alone, just not enough room to name them all.

See the problem AZ has is not so much with immigration - it is really all about illegal Drugs crossing the border. So AZ's "War on Drugs" is not under control. So label it a immigration problem and blame the government for not protecting the border.......Really?

So who has a handle on that? No one - we as a people have been fighting this war for decades and this little distraction AZ is causing is just that a Distraction.

This is just the usual right wing babble of which, I am not falling. )

You're not even constructing complete sentences at this point, Maxi. Let me try to spell it out for you.

The drug traffic is coming from Mexico.

The drug dealers are getting across the border into AZ from Mexico.

Guns and money are going back across the border into Mexico, from AZ.

Now, in the real world, drug dealers are not walking around wearing t-shirts proclaiming themselves as drug dealers.

If you can follow the logic so far, the drug dealers are coming across the border illegally from Mexico.

If a police officer pulls someone over for speeding, and is empowered to check immigration status if that person cannot produce legitimate ID, then that person who may be determined to be in the country illegally - AND may also be a drug dealer - can be apprehended.

Do you understand yet how this can assist AZ in combating not just drugs, but also human trafficking that victimizes the very people you claim to be trying to defend?

When you say "racism", what race are you talking about? Hispanics are not a race.

Rick,

It is still bigotry and prejudice no matter how you slice it. basing beliefs about "The Others" based on skin coloring is wrong, and since MOST of those "Hispanics" are actually Native Americans, some with actual Spanish blood, they actually ARE a race. Just because they speak Spanish does not diminish that, some of them actually know little Spanish either and speak in their Native Languages for the most part.

So YES, Racism does fit what we are seeing, whether you choose to believe so or not does not change the facts on the ground.

Facts are facts. They cannot change based on your view. It is not racism, it may be bigotry if they against the illegal based on something other than they are illegal. But there is no way to know. So calling people racist, bigots or prejudice is wrong unless you know that they believe that. They may just want the law enforced.

B. Honest with yourself, and recognize that you're the one hiding behind race here as a justification for allowing people to do whatever they want, so as to appear NOT racist. That leads me to conclude you are the one with racists tendencies, since you're seeing skin color to which no reference appears in the law in question - beyond five separate instances of it being specifically named as being prohibited for use in determining "reasonable suspicion".

The law is color blind. Are you? Illegal is not a race.

I understand the Illegal part, and I do not like the illegals being here either, however, I have seen an awful lot of bigotry tossed into that argument as well. Not everybody, but too much of it as is. I was specifically addressing the 'Hispanic is not a race' argument and the large number of folks that HAVE included prejudicial remarks in their posts. Did not mean to rile feathers, just point out some facts is all.

I FULLY agree that something needs to be done, but the reality is that we have to stop the people from hiring them and much of the problem will self-correct. Not all of it, but to a large degree many will stop coming here and even go back if there is no work for them here that they can get while being illegal. Trying to deport that many people is an impossibility, sadly enough, that would take nearly the entire US population working in tandem to do that, and we neither have the money nor the cohesiveness to do so. Something has to be done, but how do we go about it in a realistic manner?

Delana Darrow-I think that the Obama administration suing AZ is stirring up every one up, not the Republicans. In areas where there is an actual fence (San Diego), or electronic surveillance (Yuma), crossings have plummeted. AZ has requested border control for years and they are ignored by both parties. Obama and his administration don't want to secure the border any more than the Bush administration did, or the Clinton or the Bush.....Reagan was duped into the last amnesty because Congress "promised" that the borders would be secured, look where we are, being invaded, still. And more is at stake now, with all the violence and threats of terrorists coming over.

b. honest -

If the border was secured, by order of Obama, Brewer, or 20 hired troupes of ninja dancers from St. Louis, (in other words, SOMEONE secure the border!!!!) you would see people become willing and interested in discussing paths to citizenship - which right now just smacks of another amnesty.

Why? Because in 1986 when Reagan did an amnesty, people grudgingly agreed to it because he ALSO promised that the borders would be secured. They were not secured. In 1986, there were 3 million people made citizens - who were in fact criminals. Now, because of the Federal government's abject failure - over several administrations - to secure the border, any futuer "amnesty" involves 12-20 million people, when after the first round the borders were NOT secure.

It's wrong, it violates American's fundamental sense of fairness that that many lawbreakers are potentially rewarded, not punished, for breaking the law - along the same vein as the anger from the bailouts. Especially when more pour over the border every day in anticipation of another amnesty.

Secure the border. There is no need to obfuscate the issue, stalling for and finger-pointing for the failure to produce an overarching, new "comprehensive" law to secure the border.

That law already exists. It's called the CONSTITUTION.

Brent - Amen!

Not true. Bush and some other republicans tried to grant amesty to the illegal and the people rejected it. Please be honest.

Fedup....what you state is true.....this is exactly what he and Napolitano are doing, these were her tactics here in Arizona and it is what he is doing now. It is so urgent that they are stopped!! Not later, but now!

Does Obama really get credit for deporting "more illegals than any other administration?" Perhaps, and I'm just guessing here, it may be realted to the simple fact that there are way more illegals around now than ever before. There are literally entire neighborhoods in San Diego and LA full of them. Any enforcement raid will necessarily encounter many more than the targets.

Also, we need to get past the whole the ecomony would fall apart without the illegals. The ecomony functined just fine in 1986 when there were ONLY 2.5 -3.0 million. And according to the really old folks - there were actual workers that actually did "all the jobs American won't do."

And best of all the argument about the cost of mass deportation is being proven false right now. All those illegals in Arizona, when faced the just the potential that existing Federal law would be enforced (through Arizona state) kindly self-deported. Mexico sucks, they know jail is worse.

You probably love Reagan. Regan = Amnesty. Therefore you probably love amnesty.

DIANE BROWN-1343822 I don't think you are hearing the facts - Our President is not advocating amnesty for anyone.....This administration has deported more illegals than any other administration. So give it break and try fact checking before your start spuing right-wing babble.

Don't get me wrong I personally don't mind the idea of amnesty....it certainly has its place in a Christian Society......Lest we forget "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." No, I guess, that law doesn't apply if you are a right-wing nut. Quickly ducking to avoid second amendment methods - while writing - Sorry did I write that out load! :-)) Peace

Maxi-1413110

Yes, your president is advocating amnesty for the illegals....it is all over the news today. This has nothing to do with being Christian or not, your little guilt trip does not work here. These people are cause total havoc here in Arizona, of which you know nothing as you do not live here! So shut the hell up!!!

As I said before, it really doesn't matter how many criminal aliens are deported if the borders aren't secure-and Obama does want amnesty. He was talking about "a path to citizenship" an "comprehensive immigration reform" during the campaign.

Damn fine point.

"I think Arizona made a legal mistake. They should have first filed a suit against the Federal Government for failure to enforce current existing federal immigration laws resulting in damages to the state of Arizona ."

That thought crossed my mind also, but not being a lawyer I don't know if it is even possible for a state to sue the Federal Government, if they can maybe some other state will give it a try, enough is enough this issue is going to have to be addressed in a serious manner, this bs has gone on much too long.

JD - you are ABSOLUTELY correct. Your assessment is right on the money. However, the mere fact that AZ did NOT sue the Federal Government FIRST sheds light on why this law was passed in the FIRST place.

I have said it before, and I will say it again - this AZ law is a smokescreen - a boondoggle - that is used to stir up passions for this Governor who is running for election this year. I might add that Gov. Brewer's strategy is working like a charm. Just look at all of the passion about this issue.

Frankly, I really don;t care what AZ does to solve its immigration problem. However, AZ does NOT have the right - nor my permission - to use MY rights as an American Citizen to solve THEIR immigration problem.

Judge Bolton was ABSOLUTELY RIGHT to order an injunction against parts of this law. Now Gov. Brewer wants to 'fast track' this to the District and Supreme Court. Why? What's the rush?

Finally, I wanted to post that I saw an interview from the Pima County Sherriff that pretty much sums up what this is all about. He stated that under the current law, AZ law enforcement rounds up illegal immigrants and turns them over to ICE for processing. Under this new law, AZ law enforcement would be required to detain, house, feed and hold all illegal immigrants FIRST - BEFORE they are turned over to ICE for processing. The Pima County Sherrif stated that this new law is SILLY and it will end up costing the people of AZ MILLIONS more than it already does.

So, what's the rush on lifting the injunction?

People of AZ - you are being hoodwinked by this same 'darling' of a Governor that is saybing that she 'fights for you'. This is one of the 'unintended consequences' that the Prince Geroge County (MD) Sherriff was talking about when they tried to enact a law similar to AZ (which was RESCINDED).

SO, go ahead - make MY day.

Conservatives:

Lest we forget the following:

1. Corrections Corporation of America is one of Gov. Brew's largest contributors. Guess where all those contracts to house illegals are going?

2. What makes you think that these people want to be citizens? As opposed to just working to provide for their families?

3. What about all that money they send to Mexico, Honduras, et al? as opposed to the millions American retirees drop in these countries?

4. How much $ do "illegals" really steal from the welfare/school/medical systems? as opposed to what they pay in "taxes?"

5. How much crime are illegals responsible for when the violent crime rate in Arizona has dropped 11% in the last year? (Google AZDPS crime stats if you don't believe me).

If you want to talk about culture wars then that's another matter. But stop with the hyperbole already and base your arguments on facts.

TorpedoYou

I have to agree with your points..

I used to be a Conversative and I am sure if I still were I guess I too would blindly believe the lies or maybe some halftruths being offered here. All this is just to try to make the AZ Gov. look good - so that she would be relected - Just trying to make the Democrats look bad. The operative word is TRYING! Some appear to be falling for it - but any sane Christian person is not.

Pietro - All laws cost more then without them as you need funding to enforce law. Look at drug enforcement, just one of many examples.

Now for AZ, they would get reimbursed by the Federal government to enforcing Fed law. Every police force get's this type of funding (DUI is an example). In fact, one of the complaints from Cali as they have past due money owed to them from the Fed's for services that a "State" has provided.

whatrutikin - the issue here is that the AZ legislature decided on its own to enfoce its own version of Federal law for its own purposes. The DOJ objected and filed suit. The Judge in the case filed an injunction against all of the items that she felt were unconstitutional.

If this law had gone on WITHOUT the injunction, the State of AZ would be on the hook for ALL of the costs associated with that law. That means that you, as an AZ citizen would have to pony up MORE money than you already do. AZ is currently running a deficit; so where is the money coming from to enforce this law?

Since AZ has literally told the Feds to butt out, do you think the Feds are going to kick in any monies?

By the way, the answer to that is NO.

This whole scenario has already been played out in Riverside, NJ, Olkahoma City, and Prince George County MD. In ALL of the cases, the costs to detain, house, clothe, feed, and prosecute illegal immigrants before they were turned over to ICE was so high ALL of the cases I cited rescinded or modified their law.

AZ is going to go broke enforcing this law. The DOJ and President Obama did them a favour by filing the lawsuit.

TorpeoYou-here's a link that has costs of illegal immigration.

http://www.usillegalaliens.com/

And I don't think many illegals want to be citizens-just look at La Raza. When I worked with some Mexicans (who were working here legally-my boss sponsored them), they saved every dime and sent it all to Mexico.

About the crime-maybe you'd want to talk to families that have been impacted by crimes perpetrated by illegals (esp. those who have been deported numerous times) before you think that a declining crime rate in AZ is any reason for not enforcing the Federal Immigration Laws. Look at all the Mexican gangs that have penetrated into the country.