Obama Declares War... On Arizona? [FIXED]

Submitted by: littlemissqt 7 years ago in
http://www.sfexaminer.com/politics/white-house/Obama-sues-Arizona-over-illegal-immigrant-crackdown-97897639.html

Guess who"s suing Arizona. Yep, suing.
There are 188 comments:
Female 52
yeah arizona taxpayers completely deserve this, despite the fact that there was no way for us to vote on the issue and we`re just not broke enough
0
Reply
Male 12
Lot of fixing going on these days
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Agreed madest, but I didn`t say they lie ALL THE TIME. There are times they lie or make promises they can`t keep, and it`s usually done to stir up voters.
0
Reply
Male 798
@catbarf: Federal law is only mandated to supersede state law on interstate issues, which immigration is a part of.

But there are certain powers that only states are allowed to have.

L2constitution.
0
Reply
Male 798
At least our previous presidents have believed in national sovereignty. Obama won`t even sent support to help Arizona`s police with drug cartels that are moving into their southern cities.

You know, keep the war going that you swore to end within a year of taking office, but don`t send a few thousand national guard soldiers to secure land that is on AMERICAN SOIL.
0
Reply
Male 587
Must say I am GLAD I voted for Obama and even happier that he got elected. Feel free to blame me for getting him into office. If I had the chance I will/would do it again.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
[quote]Bush lied, Clinton lied, Obama lied, politicians lie. Big woop.[/quote]
-------
Some lies are bigger than others. Lying about a BJ so your wife doesn`t freak out is a lot less devastating than lying about the reasons for war. I don`t believe Obama has lied yet. He may have had to make some compromises that seem like lies to his base. But as far as I know he hasn`t lied.
0
Reply
Female 2,352
Suck it Arizona.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Learn to read the tea leaves people.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Bush lied, Clinton lied, Obama lied, politicians lie. Big woop.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@kilroy5555
"...we`ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th."
President George W. Bush
You were saying?

When our troops arrived they found nothing of the sort.

Yes let`s get off this horse already.
0
Reply
Male 78
I just want to complain about the idiot writer`s terrible mis-use of the word fraught in the third paragraph. It`s cringe inducing.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Oh come on Kilroy. George W. Bush and his posse of retarded douchebags attempted to tie Iraq to 9/11 thereby boosting his chances for going to war. Deny it all you want, I have truth and history on my side.
0
Reply
Male 496
Those two quotes come from two people privy to the same intelligence Bush had prior to the Iraq war invasion. The "Bush lied, people died" line (a sentiment shared by Sen Clinton herself!) is a total fabrication made up to serve Democrat political purposes. Can we please get off that horse already?
0
Reply
Male 496
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
0
Reply
Male 496
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Ignore him madest he`s a troll.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
@sourkrauter, Your avatar should involve white sheets and burning crosses. A noose or two would be a good touch as well.
0
Reply
Male 29
I live in Arizona.
The Feds put signs 80 miles from the border, only 30 from Phoenix instructing US citizens to stay away for their safety. Then he sues us.
This is really solving the illegal immigration crisis..
Brilliant. Effing brilliant, Obama. You really are a hero.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Don`t get us started on Anchor Babies 66stang.

If anything we are talking about is unconstitutional, it`s this.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
LOL @Gerry1of1
Yeah I couldn`t agree more. The Monica Lewinsky scandal didn`t irk me as much as the War in Iraq did.
0
Reply
Male 894
O.B.A.M.A. One Big Ass Mistake, America. i say we impeach the black bastard from Kenya. I am not impressed with this man. dont blame me, i didnt vote for him, i like Ike.
0
Reply
Male 101
Obama suing? No? Really? I`m shocked...

Obama is a drating joke but unfortunately a bad joke. He is ram-rodding this country to re-shape it into his vision of a socialist America, disregarding constitutional law and in general may be the worst president we have ever had.

@boNeymiZz Never elect a president on hype you dimwit. Obama was ALL hype and I think his record so far as President proves that very well. He is ineffective. His overall approval rating is already in the toilet and this is just his SECOND year. Only 53% of his Democratic base can even tolerate him.

Good job you merry jackasses for electing a complete dunderhead for President.
0
Reply
Male 39,544
I want Bill Clinton back.

If more world leaders were getting oral sex they wouldn`t be so cranky and the world would be a safer place.
0
Reply
Male 382
So you love him based on the fact that he is not dubaya?
0
Reply
Male 237
love this man. The only reason the rest of the world doesn`t laugh at US anymore... Ahem.... Dubya
0
Reply
Male 774
""The American people must wonder whether the Obama administration is really committed to securing the border when it sues a state that is simply trying to protect its people by enforcing immigration law," Republican Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl, both of Arizona, said in a joint statement criticizing the lawsuit."

He could want to do it to the letter of the law, or perhaps, not in a way so degrading.
Stop trying to place every little thing in your own black and white terms, John.

I should send him an angry letter. :\
0
Reply
Male 1,455
"F*ck Obama and his F*cking hatred of everything that makes sense."

Yeah, because upholding the Constitutionally-derived principle of federal laws superseding state laws is definitely a hatred of `making sense`.
0
Reply
Male 39,544
Obama-Love?

Well I did cast my ballot for him, it`s not because I liked Obama, I really was just voting AGAINST the other guy.
0
Reply
Male 382
Davymid, feel free to answer my question to Ruthless as well. Why does the world outside of America Love Obama, what has he done?
0
Reply
Male 2,893
F*ck Obama and his F*cking hatred of everything that makes sense.
0
Reply
Male 382
Ruthless, Why do you love Obama? What has he done to garner the love of the world?
0
Reply
Female 3,574
Gawd, politics are just a game nowadays.
0
Reply
Female 3,001
davymind is right, the rest of the world love Obama... we fail to see your problem with him. but we dont live in America, so neither do we care.... :)
0
Reply
Male 1,231
KMeatPiLover- I completely agree with you on that one- in fact its so correct, I can`t actually think of anything to add :)
0
Reply
Male 5,189
"Gerry people ignore the pot laws everyday. I just ignored it an hour ago, and I plan to ignore it again at 830 tonite..."

Haha that was the best thing I`ve read in this section. I think I`ll go ignore it right now.
0
Reply
Male 32
The reason our fool of a president is attacking this law is because he cant afford to lose the Hispanic vote in the next election. It`s not fair for all those people who go through the correct processes to become citizens for the U.S turn our backs on the flow of illegal immigration. The problems far outwiegh the benefits.
0
Reply
Female 130
"this isnt an immigration issue, its a states right`s issue. "

It`s much more than that, the law steps on the toes of any international corporation that has chosen to put a branch in arizona.

I suppose you could think that a state has a right to negatively impact its own economy and mess with national border issues but it doesn`t seem like a good idea. More like a political gambit intended to make waves, because it doesn`t just impact the "scary money grubbing illegals" that it`s advertised as doing.
0
Reply
Male 225
Arizona Has a population of 6,500,000 people, there are an estimated half million illegals. That means 1/7 of the pop is illegal, the majority of which don`t pay taxes, a large portion receive welfare for their anchor babies, they raise the insurance rates for citizens because they drive unlicensed and without insurance themselves. Numerous hospitals have been shut down because of them. They go to the emergency room for common colds because they can not be turned away, and they have no fear because a hospital can not turn in illegals. Children who should be mowing yards and earning money for their video games have no work because they have been stolen from day laborers. the list goes on and on. The federal government saying this law is unjust because their is already a federal law is stupid. If they were properly enforcing it like they should be Arizona wouldn`t have to make laws like this.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Can I interject? I realise and respect that I have no business in American Politics, feel free to tell me to f*ck off.

All I wanted to say is that the rest of the World welcomes Obama, he`s a cool leader.
0
Reply
Male 1,089
this isnt an immigration issue, its a states right`s issue.
0
Reply
Male 549
why shouldnt we tax companies that export jobs?
0
Reply
Male 2,422
The companies that employ illegal aliens should given huge fines. Eventually, the companies will figure out that cheap (and easy to coerce) labor costs them more in the long run and stop importing illegal aliens. With no jobs and no money there will be no incentive for illegals to enter or remain in the United States and leave. The problem will practically solve itself without the huge economic and humanitarian costs of rounding up every undocumented worked and giving them the boot. The kicker, of course, is that the government has to follow through and it doesn`t seem like it has the willpower to do much of anything in either direction.
0
Reply
Male 549
Kmeatpielover - you are absolutely drating correct, i`ve been trying to make this point for weeks here but believe me a lot of people dont care, its easier to kick out the filthy "illegals" than it is to be introspective and fix the root of the problem even if it means looking at our own flawed systems and recognizing we proliferate the problem.
0
Reply
Male 549
madest - we`ve clashed before but this is about as honest a comment as i`ve seen laws aside, you GET it. these people aren`t as fortunate as those born here yet they left family, home, history, everything behind to come STRUGGLE here, a lot of people make it seem like they live super cozy, they don`t not the overwhelming majority. to most of them to live in poverty in this country is more of a blessing than to live as poverty in their own, except here they have a chance to seek higher dreams and to provide more for their children. right on man.
0
Reply
Female 129
This whole "illegal immigrant crackdown" is so hypocritical.

There is one main reason people come to this country illegally: Jobs

Why can they get jobs? because american companies hire them.

Why do they hire them? because they can get away with it.

Why do they get away with it? Because the authorities let them.

Why do the authorities let them? Because they know that all these workers are an essential part of our economy.

This results in "crackdowns" where police arrest a group of unlucky immigrants while knowing that there are thousands more working for the factory.

It results in individuals being brutalized, dehumanized, and exploited while large companies get away scott free.

hypocrisy at its finest.




0
Reply
Male 3,755
I may not agree with the law, but I`ll fight for a sovereign state`s right to pass any Constitutional law they want. If they prove it`s unconstitutional, so be it. If not, so be it.
0
Reply
Male 3,755
Flame, don`t let the door hit you on the way out.
0
Reply
Male 39,544
No, jerry, I didn`t miss it. Having power over imigration is relative. They have the power to MAKE policy... but state`s rights come in to play when the Feds FAIL to enforce the policy.

As long as the law is a copy of federal law, how can there be any conflict? Constitution or otherwise.
0
Reply
Male 1,220
I can`t wait to leave the US.
0
Reply
Male 415
Rather unheard of in history
0
Reply
Male 719
@mvangild: Do you have so little faith in our nation`s intelligence agencies?

Or do you believe that this is simply a big government conspiracy?
0
Reply
Male 1,371
REALLY?
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Oh wait you said foreign affairs
--never mind.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
I`ve written WAAAAY too much over this issue that is bound for judicial resolution. Just watch the news, we`ll see who is right.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
mvangild - hehe, I just realized, SO WILL JOHN MCCAIN! And he LIVES in Arizona! Ironnnnnnyyyy!
0
Reply
Male 4,014
Its mind-blowing how little Americans know about their Fourth Amendment rights - or how quickly they will give them away out of fear of immigrants. Sad really. Oh well, at least Judges know.
0
Reply
Male 527
The only reason Obama doesn`t like the AZ law is because he would have to provide proof of citizenship to the AZ police, unlike the federal government before he accepted the presidency. HO!
0
Reply
Male 47
I think it`s a fine idea. You got in trouble? Then yea, they check EVERYTHING. You get stopped? "Licence,registration, insurance and proof of residence please." F-yeah. Why NOT check for it? If you don`t like it, you have more to hide then people might think. Go Arizona!
0
Reply
Male 4,014
"That`s making treaties."

DID YOU MISS THIS LINE?

"That the supremacy of the national power in the general field of foreign affairs, including power over immigration."

If you read the whole thing, its CLEAR AS DAY that immigration IS foreign affairs...the Court says so.

YOU DON`T UNDERSTAND - NO CONFLICT IS REQUIRED IN FIELD PREEMPTION. That case did NOT involve a treaty, nor even a state law that conflicted with a federal law.

The foreign affairs power is NOT limited only to making treaties - it also includes HOW OUR GOVERNMENT TREATS FOREIGNERS.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
"By that logic goaliejerry the permissive* laws of California and prohibitive laws of Texas on marijuana are all unconstitutional as well. "

NO - field preemption requires a showing that Congress intends to "occupy the field," and the unique power given to the Feds in the Constitution over Foreign Affairs shows field preemption.

The Feds have not occupied the field of drug laws, however. As to the permissive laws of California - they are NOT laws at all so far as the feds are concerned. The feds can come in and raid Marijuana growers in California all day. And it is no defense in a federal criminal action that the conduct was legal under state law.

However, absent preemption, the states are free to go beyond what the feds have done, thus strict Texas drug laws are not preempted.
0
Reply
Male 39,544
Gee, goaliejerry, I hate to take away your "AH HA!" moment, but Hines v. Davidowitz says the Feds are "EXCLUSIVE responsibility for the conduct of affairs with foreign sovereignties"

That`s making treaties. AZ law is about enforcing federal policy.... nothing to do with making new imigration treaties with other sovereignties.

Still no conflict, therefore not a constitutional issue.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
By that logic goaliejerry the permissive* laws of California and prohibitive laws of Texas on marijuana are all unconstitutional as well.

*There are obvious restrictions
0
Reply
Male 4,014
Hines v. Davidowitz - State passed immigration related law. The law did NOT in any way conflict with Federal Law. Nor had Congress said the states could not legislate in the field.

DID NOT MATTER. States LACK power to pass immigration related laws. PERIOD.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
Man I knew I read that case, just couldn`t find it until just now, and its SPOT ON.

I`m sure that settles the debate for all of you....
0
Reply
Male 4,014
AH HA! I found it!

Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941) - "That the supremacy of the national power in the general field of foreign affairs, including power over immigration, ... is made clear by the Constitution. . . and has since been given continuous recognition by this Court. When the national government by treaty or statute has established rules and regulations touching the rights... of aliens as such, the treaty or statute is the supreme law of the land.

No state can add to or take from the force and effect of such treaty or statute, for [Supremacy Clause Applies]. The Federal Government... is entrusted with full and EXCLUSIVE responsibility for the conduct of affairs with foreign sovereignties. "For local interests the several States of the Union exist, but for national purposes, embracing our relations with foreign nations, we are but one people, one nation, one power."

There was NO conflict there, still invalid.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
Learn about "field preemption" Gerry. If the federal government occupies the field (which it does as having SOLE authority over foreign affairs) than states cannot even SUPPLEMENT federal law with their own laws.
0
Reply
Male 39,544
I love to flip-flop on a topic.

I`m practicing for my Political Career.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
"Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
` With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"*

(in fine print - "No Mexicans")
0
Reply
Male 39,544
@ goaliejerry

The Supremacy Clause means {very simply} state law cannot overide Federal law. Arizona`s law copies and ENFORCES Federal imigration law, therefore there is no conflict.

This is not a constitutional issue. Nor is it Racism. It`s simply about self protection to maintain a standard of living that is being forced down by illegal alliens .

If you lived along the border as I do, you`d see the problem not as a bleeding heart liberal but as an unemployed man.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
"I for one am tired of all these tired, hungry, poor huddled masses coming up here.

It`s as if someone hung up a sign or something!"

Well, the difference is these people aren`t "yearning to be free," they just want to mooch on government services and rape our white women. They have no intention of living their lives in peace.
0
Reply
Male 39,544
I for one am tired of all these tired, hungry, poor huddled masses coming up here.

It`s as if someone hung up a sign or something!

0
Reply
Male 4,014
" Just like the argument for amnesty is like saying we should just let people kill or steal because murderers and thieves are people too."

Thats a ridiculous, disingenuous straw-man argument that NO ONE has EVER made. Just because you made up a fake and easy to rebut argument does not bolster your position.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
CrakrJak - That dude making the allegations you mentioned was a former U.S. Attorney appointed by Bradley Schlozman - the man who violated rules against hiring / firing U.S. Attorney`s based on political affiliation AND lied to Congress about it.

SO, a Bush-era GOP loyalist makes shocking claims about the Obama DOJ - BIG SURPRISE!
0
Reply
Male 4,014
" By the same logic, we should stop arresting murderers and thieves since people will always kill and steal."

Thats logically false equivalence, as an illegal immigrant is not as morally or criminally culpable as a murderer.

By your view of "logic," ALL crimes are equally bad, so lets just use the death penalty on shoplifters.

Do you know why some states are relaxing enforcement of marijuana laws? Because its very expensive to enforce them, and the benefit to society of enforcement is outweighed by the cost.

SURE, we COULD round up all illegals - lets have a nationwide man-hunt month, where all business shuts down and every government employee grabs a broom, lines up across the nation, and SWEEPS from Maine to Alaska, gathering up all illegals.

Now, that would be expensive. You might disagree, but being an illegal immigrant is NOT the same as being a murderer.

0
Reply
Male 55
Screw this. Fight for the solidarity of the individual states` governments! Centralized government is evil; especially when that central government proves, over and over again, that it is owned and operated not by the people, but by corporations and cheap labor "slavery".

Impeach, impeach, impeach!
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@tuxman
Do I detect a note of sarcasm?
0
Reply
Male 367
I want to see what judge has the balls to deny Obama.
0
Reply
Male 189
I am sick of this "We can`t round up all the illegals!" or "They`ll just find another way in!" argument. By the same logic, we should stop arresting murderers and thieves since people will always kill and steal. Just like the argument for amnesty is like saying we should just let people kill or steal because murderers and thieves are people too.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
It was Eric Holder who dropped the case, NOT Obama.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@CrakrJak
So your telling us that the former, who did not give advice or orders to Eric Holder regarding the case (inaction), is more corrupt than the latter, who called the director of the FBI and told him not to investigate the case (obstruction of justice)?
That`s like saying Ronald Reagan is more corrupt than Warren Harding.
I will hold judgement until I see how far this case goes.
0
Reply
Male 2,688
I came into this late, but I have to agree with goaliejerry on this one... Illegal immigrants will continue to find their way in no matter what laws get passed, and weeding them out and deporting them all, or even MOST of them, is absolutely unrealistic.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
lol, Its ok, because the BALLOONING Hispanic population in this country combined with thinly veiled anti-Hispanic rhetoric that has come from the Republican party for several years is soon enough going to make Republicans even more of a regional party.

Way to look to the future, Republicans, by taking a hard line on a quasi-racial issue affecting the fastest growing racial demographic in America!
0
Reply
Male 4,014
"But illegal immigrants shouldn`t be allowed to stay. "

To avoid the circular reasoning, I will say it once - IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO ROUND THEM ALL UP AND KICK THEM OUT. I-M-P-O-S-S-I-B-L-E. And as noted lower, we have in effect a permanent underclass of people in America now, since any "illegal" is afraid to report crimes, speak up about abuse, etc.

What of the children of illegals born here (CITIZENS, despite how much Republicans wish the Constitution said otherwise) of illegals ZNaught? They have inalienable rights as citizens. Good luck with the Hispanic vote by running on a platform that says "Remove the mothers of fathers of children citizens because they are here illegally."

I understand your gut feelings ZNaught, but there is reality to deal with.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
Or just drag your feet on ANYTHING until you`re in charge again....There`s that method of legislating too.

Again, you`re just saying "do exactly and only what we say right now, then we`ll consider talking to you later..."

Why is it a surprise that Democrats just don`t trust the altruistic motivations of our political opponents?
0
Reply
Male 351
@goaliejerry: But illegal immigrants shouldn`t be allowed to stay. Why do you think they are called illegal? The borders need to be secured and then over time illegal immigrants can be removed.
0
Reply
Male 125
GJ: Securing the border obviously doesn`t cause existing illegals to "evaporate" it just doesn`t allow for even more of them to keep coming in, just to deal with them later. In other words, stop the inflow, then work with the existing illegals.
0
Reply
Male 125
GJ: Here`s the thing. It`s impasse for sure without the border getting secured. And again, polls have nearly 70% of Americans with Arizona on this. BUT, once the border is secured. Republicans aren`t going to necessarily want to hack off potential future voters either by saying to deport them all. Reason would say that deporting all illegals would be impossible. Again, Reagan (Republican) gave amnesty in the first place.

Also, the debate on how to reform immigration can drag on for a long time while the problem grows, because the border isn`t secure. So, that`s why doing them both at the same time isn`t really feasible. I mean either way, don`t both sides agree the border needs to be secure? Why not do it first?
0
Reply
Male 4,014
As if securing the border will suddenly cause millions of illegals to evaporate...
0
Reply
Male 4,014
" but they don`t want to hear about that until the boarders are secured."

lol, no, they will NEVER "want to hear that," ever.
0
Reply
Male 125
jamie76: Imagine how Incas & Aztecs feel about the Spanish and now Mexicans?
0
Reply
Male 4,014
DaBigMachine - Look, I`m 100% on board with what you said, BUT the way you phrase it is the very problem -

Republicans say "NO, NOT UNTIL WE FIRST SECURE THE BORDER, THEN WE`LL TALK, um, later, just trust us, we`re acting in good faith."

You can`t have it both ways. Its called compromise. Do the border control and immigration reform AT THE SAME TIME!!!!

Why won`t Republicans agree to bargain? BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO INTENTION OF EVER AGREEING TO LEGITIMIZING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.

Look at Suicism - thats who votes for Republicans, a person completely unwilling to face the REALITY that ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS ARE HERE TO STAY. There is no way to purge them out. NO WAY. But he doesn`t care, "we`re booked." So rather than compromise and fix the problem, he just says "BOOOO ILLEGALS GO HOME!!!"

So, impasse.
0
Reply
Male 125
Suicism: I`m not saying I`d advocate for a pathway to citizenship. I`m just saying that Republicans (and a majority of Americans according to polls) don`t want to hear about that until the borders are secured.
0
Reply
Male 2,345
cali and texas used to be MEXICO and yet white people are still baffled that mexicans are there...
0
Reply
Male 3,631
Thank you machine, but in all sincerity, F*ck "path to citizenship" - we`re booked.
0
Reply
Male 125
GJ: Republicans might consider a "Pathway to Citizenship" for illegals here in the country, but they don`t want to hear about that until the boarders are secured. Otherwise, it`s exactly like what happened in the 80`s when Reagan gave amnesty to all the illegals under the condition that there would be immigration reform and the borders secured. Unfortunately, he gave amnesty first and the rest never happened, leading us right back into the same problem we have today.

So, the answer is to secure the border first. Then, reform immigration laws to reduce the opportunity for immigrants to stay here illegally. Then, finally, decide about a "Pathway to Citizenship". I`d like to add, it would be preferable to amend the law that allows for non US citizen to be able to have the child be a US citizen just because they were born in America. That needs to stop also. That just encourages illegal immigrants.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
""I have a perfect solution to the immigration problem. Mexico, give us your country. We`ll sell the land, make billions of dollars, force all of the illegals to now pay taxes, pay their own health care, etc. There will note be any immigration trouble any longer, we`ll double the size of the united states, and improve our economy almost over night. It`s a simple solution to the problem I believe."

Mexico is DIRT POOR. We don`t want them! But lets make the "illegals" here pay their own fricken taxes to pay for the burden they place on public services.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
Norris - I don`t think anyone is against immigration reform. The problem politically is, we all realize that there are MILLIONS of people here illegally, and it is simply impossible to round them up and kick`em out. So what to do? Just have a permanent illegal class of persons in this country? I say (and Democrats generally say), lets somehow legitimize them (how???? IDK) and get their asses to pay taxes like everyone else.

Sensible Republicans know this too - but their base is RABIDLY anti-immigrant, so they just insist on "building a fence" and refuse to consider how to ACTUALLY deal with the problem of millions of people ALREADY HERE who will be here forever no matter what we do.

However, what with all the hullabaloo as of late, maybe SOMETHING will get done...
0
Reply
Male 1,011
bah, I-a-b..if youre gonna have a 1k character limit, at least show them all gdi :P
0
Reply
Male 1,590
"I have a perfect solution to the immigration problem. Mexico, give us your country. We`ll sell the land, make billions of dollars, force all of the illegals to now pay taxes, pay their own health care, etc. There will note be any immigration trouble any longer, we`ll double the size of the united states, and improve our economy almost over night. It`s a simple solution to the problem I believe."

Funny thing is, the US effectively conquered Mexico in 1848, but returned the part it didn`t want and paid for the part it did.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
"It`s not supposed to be a secret."

Its not, I was just messing around. Its called the "Tax Power," which says:

"Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."

This power, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, “reaches every subject,” is “exhaustive” and “embraces every conceivable power of taxation.” 75 U.S. 462, 471; 240 U.S. 1.

The Supreme Court has also said that practically ANY Tax imposed by Congress is valid so long that it relates to raising revenue.

Congress ROUTINELY uses the tax code to encourage / discourage behavior. Thus, it can "encourage" people to buy individual health insurance by imposing a "tax" on those who refuse.

So, those who argue its "unconstitutional" are full o` crap.
0
Reply
Male 1,011
I agree with Green_batman it COULD be easily corrupted.

To my understanding, the law states as follows, you get pulled over, you give your ID like anyone else..if they suspect you`re here illegally they can ask for proof that you have the right to be here. If not, you`re ass is carted away, as they should be.

There would need to be definite, concrete procedures for that.

People don`t realize that slavery still exists in America today..sure, its not called that, but what else would you call human trafficking for labor, with little or no pay?

A few years ago, there was an 18 wheeler trailer abandoned near a rest stop, noone thought much of it, its rather common for the truckers to do such things. About a week passes, and so the police go to seize the trailer, and guess what?

It was full of dead illegals, from babies to old folks.

IMO, if you`re against immigration reform, you`re no better than the slave drivers, promising a future
0
Reply
Male 4,014
"I live in Arizona and I can tell you for a fact that the law is not severely impacting anything."

You`re right, because it hasn`t gone into effect yet...
0
Reply
Male 352
I live in Arizona and I can tell you for a fact that the law is not severely impacting anything. Documentation can also count as a driver`s license or student ID.

This really isn`t about the law or the morality behind it. As with everything in politics, it`s about making the other side look bad to secure votes. If you believe anything else, it`s more than likely false.
0
Reply
Male 716
To be honest, I sympathize with the people who want to come here and find work, but I`ve seen so many illegal AND legal immigrants just sitting at home mooching off the state... it has to stop.

I propose shooting those who mooch... that`s just me.
____________

I agree with the spirit of this law, but... erm... it`s not quite right, and not right enough to actually enact.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
Jeff - lol, so all those Law Professors who hold J.D.s aren`t "actual" professors?

There IS NO Ph.D. in Law buddy.
0
Reply
Male 180
The 10th amendment, by explicitly reserving all powers not enumerated or speficied in the main text or subsequent amendments by implication "tells" the federal government what it can`t do. And in Article 1, Sec. 9, Article 6, and Amendments 1-5, 8, 15, 19, 24, and 26 it explicitly "tells" what the fed gov`t can`t do.
0
Reply
Male 180
(IAB cut it off): He was only a `lecturer` in const. law.
0
Reply
Female 728
I think the Arizona immigration law is a little too easily corruptible. It brings Arizona one step closer to a police state, as well as creating a hassle for Hispanic citizens. It may even drive legal Hispanic citizens out of the state, which is bad for them and for Arizona.

Frankly, it should be easier to immigrate to any country. People should be allowed the freedom to move about so long as they don`t commit criminal acts in the process. Making it easier for people to become US citizens would bring in more tax dollars for the government, too. People who are trying to escape the hellhole that is many parts of Mexico will want to move to the US whether it is legal or not. Most of the illegal immigrants we have right now would be legal immigrants giving money back to the system if it were easier to become a citizen. The main complaint that most people have about illegal immigrants is that they are a drain on the system. Making immigration easier would fix that.
0
Reply
Male 78
uh isnt there an oil spill somewhere? nvm i guess thats not really important compared with illegal immigrants....
0
Reply
Male 180
@ madest: "...Republicans couldn`t care less about the rights derived from the constitution..."
Individual rights are not "derived from" or granted by the constitution. The const. presumes the individual has all rights imaginable. The first ten amendments specify which rights may not be deprived or infringed by the fed govt, which is defined in the main body. It is impossible to do otherwise - to presume the individual has zero rights and then list or imply them in a written document of finite length.

from Znaught`s post: "The Constitution is not a document which tells what the fed can`t do, but rather what it can." This isn`t true, and demonstrates B.O.`s deception or even ignorance. The const. specifies exactly what the federal government can and must do. Then, in the 10th amendment withholds any and all other unspecified powers from the fed govt.

B.O. cannot be a true professor - he doesn`t hold a PhD. He was only a `lectur
0
Reply
Female 203
Oh that`s nice....thanks for taking away what little food they actually were capable of serving us at school. There goes the photo class...
0
Reply
Male 25,417
wow!
0
Reply
Female 688
I have a perfect solution to the immigration problem. Mexico, give us your country. We`ll sell the land, make billions of dollars, force all of the illegals to now pay taxes, pay their own health care, etc. There will note be any immigration trouble any longer, we`ll double the size of the united states, and improve our economy almost over night. It`s a simple solution to the problem I believe.

So Mexico, you won`t help with immigration just give us your country.
0
Reply
Male 125
What I don`t understand is why the government won`t just secure the border and stop more illegals from coming in (or as many as possible that is). Then, work on immigration reform. Or, work on immigration reform WHILE the border is being secured NOW.

Arizona only passed this law to bring attention to the problem that the Federal government isn`t enforcing it`s own laws concerning illegal immigrants.

Sadly, our federal government is spending it`s time and OUR money attacking one of our fellow states instead of HELPING them. The federal government could offer real incentives to Arizona to repeal the law. For instance, they could secure the border, give more aide for enforcement in return for Arizona repealing the law (after Arizona gets the incentives of course). That would seem to be one logical approach to this challenge.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Yeah, He`ll prosecute Arizona over immigration, But dropped the case against the new black panthers voter intimidation in Philly.

Obama is more corrupt than Nixon ever thought of being.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@goaliejerry
It`s not supposed to be a secret.
But I think Obama is wasting his time here.
0
Reply
Male 975
Gerry people ignore the pot laws everyday. I just ignored it an hour ago, and I plan to ignore it again at 830 tonite...
0
Reply
Male 1,451
Wow, so much anger over a title (because it links to absolutely nothing)
0
Reply
Male 99
The Professor of Constitutional Law is suing Arizona and he gets to do it because he`s the President.

Where`s Denny Crane and Alan Shore when you need them?
0
Reply
Male 4,014
"he Constitution is not a document which tells what the fed can`t do, but rather what it can. So where does it allow for health care?"

Its a secret! Shhhhh!
0
Reply
Male 351
@goaliejerry: How is state reps being bribed an opinion?

Again, read my last post.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
"So anyone going to actually address my last post?"

No, you can have your beliefs, just watch how the courts handle the issue, and when they uphold the constitutionality of the law, then you can call them "activist judges" since their views of the constitution differ from yours.
0
Reply
Male 39,544
If we are gonna ignore imigration law, can we also ignore the pot laws? I could use a bong hit right about now. What? Oh, we have to obey that law but Mexicans here illegally don`t have to obey the laws.

WHO is the racist here? Not me.
0
Reply
Male 351
@goaliejerry: The Constitution is not a document which tells what the fed can`t do, but rather what it can. So where does it allow for health care?

That is how corrupt constitutional interpretation works. You can`t change what the document says or what was intended by it. That is FACT.
0
Reply
Male 1,299
The law in Arizona is going to be over-turned, either federally or at a state level, simply because it is recognized as unenforceable by those charged with enforcing it.
0
Reply
Male 351
@avalon: That pretty much sums up the whole illegal immigrant issue...

So anyone going to actually address my last post?
0
Reply
Male 4,014
"I could care less, the fact of the matter is that the bill is/was unconstitutional."

Sure sure, just keep telling yourself that. You don`t need to be able to explain in a coherent manner WHY, you just know it in your gut. Thats how constitutional interpretation works - its whatever you think it is.
0
Reply
Male 187
ooh ooh I want to play.

I will take it down a notch, and simply the whole discussion further: Illegal things are not legal.
0
Reply
Male 591
auburnjunky, you`re not right, either.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
"They were made public AFTER the bill passed."

Thats not how congressional records work, they were available, but you wanted a SHOW public hearing, custom made for a 30 second story on the news. That is NOT how legislation is made.
0
Reply
Male 351
@goaliejerry: I could care less, the fact of the matter is that the bill is/was unconstitutional. Not to mention all of the corruption involved in the bill. Did any of the democrats that voted for the bill actually read the whole thing?
0
Reply
Male 10,338
@fizok:

Then don`t play, `cause I`m not.

Pillock.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
Look, you can chose to believe whatever version of reality you want. Go ahead, pull the blinders and ignore that many of the health-care reform provisions that ended up in the final bill were culled from years of ideas introduced in Congress by both parties. You have the right to remain willfully ignorant!
0
Reply
Male 10,338
@goaliejerry:

They were made public AFTER the bill passed.

0
Reply
Male 591
Sorry, auburnjunky, I`m really not interested in your game of "If I say so, it`s automatically true."
0
Reply
Male 4,014
"debates on the subject public"

Did YOU go and look up the records from Committee meetings? They are available online. Oh, you mean you want them pre-packaged for Fox News soundbites, and not ACTUAL committee debate which is boring as hell and drawn out.

The records from Committees are publicly available. You people construct this fantasy of what happened and just won`t let it go.
0
Reply
Male 351
@goaliejerry: Why would they want to vote yes? I fail to see the point in voting for such a pointless, unconstitutional, unamerican, bribery filled bill.
0
Reply
Female 4,447
"The page cannot be found" So no controversy talk for me. Boo.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
@goaliejerry:

....and some democrats.

They must not have been bought, unconstitutionally, like Nebraska, or Louisiana, etc.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
@fizok:

The only time republican views and suggestions were considered for the health care bill, were ones made on the floor and were then taken by the speaker to the backdoor meetings by the dems in the house to be denied.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
"Obama did not even consider the views of republicans."

Do you guys read news? This is FUN: PROOF

What happened to that? Oh, thats right, ALL Republicans voted NO.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
@goaliejerry:

He also pledged to make debates on the subject public, but never even discussed it with republicans and had all the meetings on the subject in private.
0
Reply
Male 591
"Obama did not even consider the views of republicans."

100% wrong. Many of the ideas, suggestions and requests made by Republicans in Congress during negotiations on the bill were included in the final bill. Republicans voted against it anyway.
0
Reply
Male 351
@goaliejerry: Happened with health care? Are you joking? Obama did not even consider the views of republicans.
0
Reply
Male 351
@goaliejerry: Except taxing as a means to FORCE the purchase of something is just unamerican. How is that much different than forcing religion upon someone or what not? It`s not really a tax. It is a FINE.

Just because the court system may rule in favor of the administration in various cases, does not make them correct either. Do you know what their job is? Not to rule in their best interest or the interest of their party, but to interpret law. Yes you are probably going to be all "HURR DURR, BUT THEY CAN INTERPRET IT ANY WAY THEY WANT". If they were doing their jobs correctly, they would accept their oath and actually rule according to what the constitution was intended to mean rather than what simply is convenient for liberals or republicans. It`s BS.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
"I don`t think either of those programs are constitutional either."

Well that explains why you`re wildly wrong about the constitutionality of Health Care Reform too.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
Dudes, call yourselves whatever you want, but when you "positions" mirror those of "conservatives" and "Republicans" forgive me if I mislabel you.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
Heres what is happening today, over and over again. Democrats work with a Republicans on a bill. Republicans draw it out, get concessions, waste time, THEN VOTE AGAINST THE BILL. Scott Brown did this very thing on a recent jobs bill. This happened on Health Care Reform, we work with Republicans, then they just say NO NO NO anyways, after bargaining in bad faith.

Why? Because for them, its all about keeping the economy down so they can get back in power.
0
Reply
Male 351
@goaliejerry: I am not a republican nor a conservative. Stop assuming that I am.

I don`t think either of those programs are constitutional either.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
AJ- ITS ENFORCED BY THE IRS. How? ON YOUR TAXES. ITS A TAX.

Ok, this was fun, we`ll pick this up when the Fed Ct in Arizona rules on the issuance of an injunction against the Arizona law going into affect.
0
Reply
Male 351
@goaliejerry: Wait, so kinda like how not much was passed and everything was a battle in congress when Obama has the majority in both the house and the senate?

The problem is that both parties want to throw in stuff that has nothing to do with the issue. If they just passed small bills one by one, it would be a much better way to GET THINGS DONE. Instead both parties insist on adding stuff so that the other party is forced to pass what the other party wants. Its pretty stupid. Not that the democrats want to tighten border security anyway...
0
Reply
Male 10,338
@goaliejerry:

I agree. That is true, but in the health care law, it is described as a FINE not a TAX.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
For the record, once again, I am NOT republican.

That being said, sometimes a compromise is a bad thing when that compromise accomplishes nothing.

This issue is more black and white than you guys are making it seem. No pun intended.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
Ok, I`m not going to feed the ill-informed, suffice it to say, under the constitution, the Feds can Tax ANYTHING so long as it generates revenue. Thus, they can tax those who DON`T buy health insurance.

And you righties overlook something staring you in the face - The Federal Government Runs Medicare and Medicaid - NATIONAL HEALTH PROGRAMS - yet you keep repeating that Health Care Reform is unconstitutional because, um, you argue that, um, the feds cannot nationally regulate healthcare??????

My head explodes....
0
Reply
Male 4,014
"The whole issue is that the fed is not doing their job in actually protecting the borders."

Ok, so guess what Republicans? In order to address the issue, you have to COMPROMISE with Democrats to PASS FEDERAL LAWS, which might require you to give up something you want - you can`t have it all your way. Thats how legislative bodies are supposed to work, not just "waaaahh, we`re not in charge, so we say NO NO NO to everything!"
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Correction:

The LIBERAL constitutional law professor.

There is a difference.
0
Reply
Male 351
@goaliejerry: And how so? Sure doesn`t seem like he gives a damn. Remember how Nancy Pelosi was asked about the constitutionality of it and she just dodged the question by saying "Are you serious? Are you serious?". Yet you seem to think this administration even believes that they are following the constitution?
0
Reply
Male 17
i cant see it
0
Reply
Male 4,014
" blatantly unconstitutional" - Me thinks Obama - The Constitutional Law Professor - might disagree with your understanding of the Constitution.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
I have a feeling Obama wants another SC Justice to die so he can insert another before this gets to them.

5-4 won`t cut it when the 5 isn`t liberal.
0
Reply
Male 351
@goaliejerry: Yet Obama cares? I find it funny that he passes health care into law which is blatantly unconstitutional yet he is now trying to uphold the constitution?

The whole issue is that the fed is not doing their job in actually protecting the borders. The state should be able to protect itself.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
My thing is, the Arizona law is a mirror of federal law. That`s all it is.

Why is that wrong? Because our federal government chooses not to enforce it at the moment?
0
Reply
Male 10,338
madest continues to troll.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
"why can`t a city or state choose to enforce federal law?"

They CAN, but not in a way that works in opposition / conflict to the federal law, which is what the feds argue Arizona is doing. We`ll see what the courts do, but the DOJ doesn`t act lightly...
0
Reply
Male 10,338
slippery slope GJ.

If a city or state can refuse to enforce federal law, why can`t a city or state choose to enforce federal law?

(which is what the arizona law does)
0
Reply
Male 4,014
"This violates the tenth amendment, by giving the city in question individual power over immigration law in those cases."

WRONG - The Feds are free to come into that city and enforce federal law, and the states can do nothing to stop them.

This is easy stuff.
0
Reply
Female 1,593
{insert political view opposite to yours.}
{Insert opinion your political view is wrong, make fun of it.}

Am I doing this right so far?

---

Very well, actually!

But Hemtroll is right, gotta question their sexuality.

And maybe insult their intelligence and/or mother.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
AJ - you simply do not understand how our country works. Did you know that State governments are under NO DUTY to enforce Federal Law??? None, and moreover, the Feds CANNOT force the states officials to act as agents of the federal government.

Therefore, if states are under NO DUTY to enforce federal law (thats why they can pass medical marijuanna laws, for example) then they CAN REFUSE to enforce federal law.

Easy.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
It also violates federal law, which requires ALL police to inform the federal government of illegal immigrant activity.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Several United States cities have declared themselves "sanctuary cities", whereby they have ordered the local police department to specifically not work with United States Customs and Border Protection officials to arrest persons illegally residing within the boundaries of the city, and to not inquire as to a person`s immigration status, even if the person was arrested.

This violates the tenth amendment, by giving the city in question individual power over immigration law in those cases.
0
Reply
Male 67
I wish our politicians would stop playing politics and actually focus on some important issues. If you read the Arizona law, it makes a lot of sense, and it doesn`t infringe on anyone`s rights. Basically, if you break the law, and the officer has reasonable suspicion that you are not a citizen, you have to prove your legality (e.g. show your driver`s license or other state/federal issued ID) Note that the only way an officer can question your citizenship is if you have ALREADY broken the law, they can`t just stop everyone on the street.

Here`s a nice summary of the state law in plain english (though the actual thing isn`t that hard to understand either)
Arizona Immigration Law Summary
0
Reply
Male 4,014
"That amendment protects CITIZENS. The Arizona law targets ILLEGAL immigrants."

I don`t have time to repeat myself, we`ve gone over this before as to how the law WILL impact CITIZENS. Just read the courts opinion when it comes out, it will explain what you continue to miss here.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
"Sanctuary city laws are also "violating" the constitution as well. "

Explain, in constitutional terms, how that is true.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
...and as for the 14th amendment, this law neither impedes, or circumvents it.

That amendment protects CITIZENS. The Arizona law targets ILLEGAL immigrants.
0
Reply
Female 2,509
"But OF COURSE, those on the right don`t seem to care (or even understand) how the constitution works... "

kinda like the left...
0
Reply
Male 4,014
The feds are going to win too. This isn`t just for sh*ts and giggles, the States cannot regulate immigration under the Constitution, its called the Supremacy Clause and preemption.

The feds aren`t even going after the racial profiling aspect of the law, because it is much clearer and easier to show that Federal Law preempts the field of immigration.

But OF COURSE, those on the right don`t seem to care (or even understand) how the constitution works...

Imagine the confusion that would ensue if forigen visitors to this country had to deal with 50 different state`s special rules on how they have to conduct themselves while in their territory. No, Supreme Court precedent is CLEAR that in the area of immigration, national uniformity is so important that Federal Law alone controls.

This isn`t trivial, despite the *eye rolls* by AJ.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Sanctuary city laws are also "violating" the constitution as well.

No pissing and moaning about that one.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Yet another 404 moment brought to you by I-A-B!
0
Reply
Male 363
@RoboPatton, you need to question their sexuality at least twice, otherwise you`re spot on.
0
Reply
Female 58
Page cannot be found?? hmmmmm ¬_¬
0
Reply
Male 2,424
{insert political view opposite to yours.}
{Insert opinion your political view is wrong, make fun of it.}

Am I doing this right so far?
0
Reply
Male 358
linked to www.i-am-bored.com/obama ?
0
Reply
Female 149
Four oh four!
0
Reply
Male 6,694
Oh boy. Obama stuff.
0
Reply
Female 305
he`s suing cuz he ran out of money and china wont give him more
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Oh god. Only 1 1/2 years people. Please be patient.
0
Reply
Female 1,586
Link: Obama Declares War... On Arizona? [FIXED] [Rate Link] - Guess who`s suing Arizona. Yep, suing.
0
Reply