The whole dust-up over the SB1070 law and subsequent federal lawsuit has been revealing in ways that most people could not have expected.
Clearly, some people were not prepared to hear the federal government try so hard to not do its appointed duty, and its willingness to prevent anyone else from doing it either. And as someone with both political science and law degrees, I know that I was not prepared to hear a justification that boiled down to “We cannot have the states telling us to actually do our jobs, and enforce the laws regarding immigration.” Sadly, for me, the only surprise was to hear it stated so plainly. I’ve made some gutsy arguments in my time, but if I tried something like that, my carbon footprint would include not just me, but the guy following me around with the wheelbarrow, carrying my balls behind me.
Nevertheless, the degree of mental gymnastics that some are willing to publically go through is nothing short of offensive, as people who have every reason to know better have said some painfully foolish things, like one of my colleagues in the Tacoma-Pierce County Bar Association, who opined in the September Editorial:
“The flaw in Arizona’s scheme is that it focuses on the alien, the most vulnerable and defenseless factor in immigration. Arizona could increase the penalties for the “coyotes”, human smugglers, who engage in a dangerous, demeaning, and extremely profitable activity. Arizona could also improve its anti-money laundering laws to penalize the repatriation of profits from human smuggling.”
Now, it is easily discoverable that Arizona already has a law against human trafficking, with some real penalties, or a money laundering statute, but it seems a bit cheeky to advocate tougher laws against some of the law breakers in the chain, while making excuses for the root cause. It is staggeringly intellectually dishonest to try to dismiss the immigrants themselves from any moral or legal responsibility for their actions. They don’t come here because of the coyotes or the money laundering; they come here because they chose to. They come here KNOWING that it breaks our laws. The Coyotes are enablers, but they only become part of the problem AFTER the decision to break our laws has been made, and only a sober and honest recognition of that will enable us to see our way clear of the ongoing silent invasion that our southern neighbor has been waging against us for decades.
Still, this administration sees votes in them thar illegals, and is bound and determined to get them. I think the administration wanted Arizona to pass the law. I think it gave them an opportunity to announce by implication that it has no interest in preventing the hemorrhaging sovereignty along our southern border. Why else would it claim that SB 1070 is a means for the state to dictate the federal government’s priorities to it?
And in true Chicago thug-style, AG Holder’s inJustice Department saw the need to press its perceived advantage, and go after the Maricopa Community Colleges for striving to make sure that they didn’t employ illegals, and now are investigating Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio for allegedly discriminatory practices. However, there might be a problem with the veneer of legitimacy inJustice has fronted with this latest investigation, as noted by Byron York in his piece at the Washington Examiner:
Despite the splash of attention from the newest lawsuit, the Justice Department’s investigation of Arpaio could end badly for Holder. When the Department first informed Arpaio that a probe was under way, back in March 2009, it sent a letter saying the investigation would focus on “alleged patterns or practices of discriminatory police practices and unconstitutional searches and seizures.” But now we learn that just six months before that, in September 2008, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, known as ICE, did its own investigation of Arpaio’s office — and gave it a clean bill of health. Arpaio’s lawyers recently got a copy of the ICE report through the Freedom of Information Act.
Mental gymnastics to promote lies might work for awhile.
But decency is reaching a point of intolerance for this despicable crap.
*Mark Davis, the guy subbing for Rush Limbaugh today, gave me a hug last night. He is talking about this decent force that is going to take this country back as I type this. We are a force to be respected.*
Just watch. Grab your shorts, morons. Gonna be a fun ride!
Cathy, I look at what is going on, and I wonder how people who were paying attention felt in the 1850s.
If anyone would like to look at the report it can be foundhere Go there and click on the word “here” at the end of the paragraph.
I gave it a pretty quick look. I found it to definitely get its “Yeeeeaaaaa Obama” thing going on.
I also found it pretty funny especially line item 100.
We all know what a great group that is…
I actually think the New John McCain got it right when he said build the damn fence.
We need two things. First, better border control. Second stiffer penalties for businesses who hire “illegals”.
BiW, in your typical conservative way, you blame the weakest link in the chain. They come here to escape poverty and find work. If you keep the door locked and keep the work unavailable you solve the problem.
BiW, in your typical conservative way, you blame the weakest link in the chain. They come here to escape poverty and find work. If you keep the door locked and keep the work unavailable you solve the problem.
Rutherford, just because I didn’t make this about stronger security at the border doesn’t mean I’m not in favor of it. On the contrary, I’m of a mind that says borders mean something, and that crossing them should be not only illegal, but inherently dangerous…as in hoping you don’t get spotted and shot dangerous. If that means fences, patrolled regularly by armed guards with authorization to shoot people coming our direction, or to sic dogs on them, and towers every few feet manned by men armed with high-powered rifles, I really am ok with that. Your weakest link argument not only fails, but is insulting.
The illegal immigrant (not undocumented person) makes the choice to come here illegally. It doesn’t matter why they choose to do so. It isn’t like I owe them anything, let alone a “better life” or a chance to escape poverty. Hell, I don’t even owe that to you, and you’re a fellow citizen. For you to essentially say that its our fault because they can have a better life here and we make it easy for them to come does nothing to change the fact that they made a conscious decision to violate our laws to come over that border and become SanFranNan’s upstairs maid, or gardener, or pool boy. Illegal is illegal, and severe punishment, like a fatally secure border, would be a great disincentive. But regardless of the reason (and I can’t blame them…the narcocracy in Mehico is a repulsive form of government to live under), THEY are the ones chosing to do something they know is wrong, and in so doing, they steal from each of us, which is why I refuse to take the hearts and flowers and fluffy bunnies approach.
Landmines across the fence
Interestingly Elric, I heard somewhere that we now have … wait for it … drones along the border. Now all we need is for them to be armed drones.
“Cathy, I look at what is going on, and I wonder how people who were paying attention felt in the 1850s.”
Yep. Only this time its the Federal government that wants to make us all slaves.
BiW, to put it differently, you don’t blame the ants because you have a sloppy kitchen with crumbs all over the floor. You keep the floor clean and the ants don’t come.
Before everyone gets their panties in a knot … no I am not deliberately making animal analogies regarding Mexicans.
You really haven’t thought this through. SB1070 is an attempt to keep the floor clean, and the ants, aided by operatives and members of a certain political party, responded with demonstrations and defiant declarations of what they believe they are owed. We saw pretty plainly a deep-seated sense of entitlement to something they have no legal or moral claim on.
A Bridge Too Far…
I found your entry interesting do I’ve added a Trackback to it on my weblog
…
Of course having a similar immigration policy to Mexico’s would be great. Drones wouldnt like that though.
Now Elric, you’ll have to be clearer here. Which drones are you talking about … the flying ones or the lying ones?
So how soon before states tell the Feds to screw off?
Map showing State by State
Standings on State Sovereignty.
Last updated August 2010
http://statesstand.ning.com/
From what has been made publicly known, by agents of the State of Arizona (including her Governor); they, along with various other states (for the same and other reasons) are trying to use or avail themselves of every legal, “diplomatic”, and (I would suspect) political option(s) possible in dealing with the concerns they are facing.
Failing this (and noting the Az Governors rather long pauses on a recent interview), I think they know exactly what the next level of options may very well be, at some point down the road. Secession may be very much closer then we realize, for a number of states, for a number of reasons, immigration being perhaps the most notable.
Guy,
I think secession is coming too. Unless we go back to Federalism, states will have no choice unless they want to be slaves to the Federal government.
We need two things. First, better border control. Second stiffer penalties for businesses who hire “illegals”.
Glad you are in favor of border control. It’s pretty crappy for those who live in these states near the border. We get little support from the feds and when local or state authorities do ‘snag’ those who are clearly illegal and criminal, the feds dump their responsibility, communicating to the general population and illegals that there really is no law enforcement, which makes the situation worse.
People are getting hurt and killed INCLUDING the decent illegal immigrants who are trying to live here under the radar. THEY are the primary victims of the criminal illegal immigrant element which Arizona has tried to focus on but is getting so much crap and opposition from the feds. WTF?! I just hope Governor Brewer holds up. Poor gal is struggling with her own version of PTSD I think.
Many of us in the middle of this issue see the bigger problem of stiffer penalties on businesses who hire, in that the business persons hands are tied by the government. Sheeyah!
Here’s why. I probably won’t explain it very well. But I’ll first digress a tad. Heard a presentation by a conservative lady lawyer who practices immigration law here in Dallas. She owns that she is probably more moderate than the ‘hard right-winger’ types (which I’m not either!). Both my husband and I agree with her moderate but realistic suggestions toward a solution-package:
1) No amnesty and no automatic citizenship for their infants born here.
2) Increase the annual influx quotas for immigrants permitted into the system legally, in other words raise the annual quota substantially.
3) Put systems in place to identify the present illegals who have not committed other crimes and put them through a procedure to fine them, make them pay taxes, and process them in the queue just as anyone who has been trying to do this legally. And to permit them to come forward and enter this system without being deported IF they truly are willing to enter the system and the long process of legal immigration to citizenship. The current quota number (which was in my notes from her presentation which I can’t find) is held inordinately low. VERY LOW if I recall. Why so low? People have been trying to raise those quotas for years. She says it’s the liberals who want this number kept low to force amnesty as the only solution. How’s that for nasty politics?!? Honestly, most folks around her would love MORE LEGAL IMMIGRATION, seeing it as good healthy growth for our economy. Texans are proud to be natural mongrels and muts.
4) Create for the employers/businesses a cooperative environment in identifying illegals. If you penalize employers as the first line of responsibility or too harshly, they will avoid hiring anyone who might look illegal (and appear, once again to look ‘racist.’) You have here decent conservative people, many who are Hispanic, legal immigrants now citizens themselves, lawyers, business & professional people ALL wanting this well-thought solution and the liberal government is fighting them, and hurting businesses by making employers vulnerable to the stiff penalties and prosecution. What an effin’ mess! It’s not only moronic, it’s despicable behavior on the part of our liberal government.
Everyone with a brain and an ethical bone in his/her body can clearly see that the liberals want amnesty in order to add to the voting block of highly dependent hand-out types in the Democrat party, which will further encumber our economy. There is something wrong when we have such a large percentage of our population on the dole. It’s much too inviting for them to cross the border, birth their babies and make fast tracks to the government tit. Our ‘checkbook’ is left indefensible! How stupid can we be?! The incentives for breaking the law must be eliminated and consequences have to be put in place and enforced instead.
Point of emphasis. The moderate conservative legal Hispanic American citizens, the educated professionals, business people, and lawyers I’ve met are in favor of this relaxation on the businesses themselves. Any stiffer penalties on the employers is a punishment to them and will further impede economic growth. We don’t need that. Especially right now. Employers are not the root cause of illegal immigrant problems. The root of the problem is the illegal. The first line of defense needs to be securing our sovereign nation — the job of the federal government.
What’s wrong with the stiffer penalties for employers solution? Employers’ hands get tied behind their backs when they ask for proof of citizenship or green card status. Even though they have that website that is supposed to help once they use it they are on record and are then ‘targets’ for scrutiny and punishments. And from what I’ve heard, the system lacks the functionality to be a fully run systematic solution. As it stands it sets up the employer for failure. That simply is not fair nor just.
Why is the employer now the ‘cop?’ Employers may inspect all the forms provided by the employee and has provided and — as a simple small businessman — think these are all legitimate. Fake forms and counterfeit systems are big business around here. Why do the employers have to bear the burden for what is legitimate and what is not? Get my drift? Who would want to even give one of these folks a chance at a job if they are afraid that they are forced to legitimize everything and hire lawyers to defend them while the government ties their hands and takes no responsibility for having a system that works correctly in the first place? And employers also fear getting sued for being too nosy, asking too many questions, and turning people down for jobs. You got to look at the other side of this nasty issue. Businesses need the government to get off their backs so they can do business, keep their employees employed and paying taxes, grow, and hire more people to bring down the jobless rate.
The whole thing is a mess, but American business men and women are not the problem. So why does our liberal government have their sights aimed primarily on employers? Is it because Washington is full of despicable nasty people who are making the problem worse while hiding their own socialist agenda?
When will the feds take responsibility and protect OUR sovereignty? They should be the ones thrown out of office or fired and thrown in jail for their corrupt practices that burden us taxpayers as far as I’m concerned. Yea. I’m not holding my breath waiting or that to happen anytime soon.
I’m prepared to debate the accusation that employers are the problem because the WANT to pay illegals lower wages under the table. That is an economic discussion that doesn’t hold much water for the liberals pointing fingers and businesses again. Go ahead. I’m ready iffin anyone wants to try… Sounds like classic liberal projection of their own skanky attitude about paying their maids and gardeners crap wages.
^ Um. Er. Sorry about the rant.
Why? I’m not.
Cathy, I’m gonna be honest. I like rants. And you haven’t given me reason to be irritated with your comments here. And unless you serve me a mincepie in October, I doubt that much will to happen to change that.
Mmmm, BiW I thought legal Hispanics were outraged by the AZ law …. not illegals.
Because Dems have been vigorously posing the clap-trap that the law will profile hispanics, when it specifically prohibits profiling.
I strongly suspect the only thing businesses like better than hiring cheap local (illegal) labor is outsourcing it altogether to another country with cheap wages.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and sound like Michele Bachmann, but I think we need to investigate which businesses have America’s best interests at heart and which ones will do anything for a buck.
Demanding that businesses properly screen for illegals is no different than demanding that businesses don’t hire children. Should we abolish child labor laws because we don’t want to burden businesses with enforcement?
We’re not asking businesses to police anything. We’re asking them to comply with the law.
The almighty dollar is as American as Apple Pie.
This sounds more like a formerly laid off employee than a rational thinker. We have strong laws against hiring illegals, we also have laws against crossing the border illegally. Why enforce one and ignore the other?
No one objects to businesses hiring only LEGAL immigrants and citizens. Yea! Wonder of wonders! We have lots of LEGAL IMMIGRANTS who work here and are on their LEGAL path to citizenship.
And there are plenty of laws on the books already to curb the crime of illegal workers. My objection is putting the BURDEN of proof with stricter laws and more scrutiny ON the employers. You must not be a small business man or have much knowledge of entrepreneurship, huh.
Are you being a koolaid drinking moron now or just a drone? Take your pick, Sweetie.
Don’t try to bring Michele Bachmann into this to prove anything. She and her husband own a small business and would NEVER intentionally break the law to make an extra buck. They are Christians first, lawyers and business people next. It ain’t gonna happen. She stands with Governor Brewer. And GOOD business men and women all over this country know deep down that legal and ethical practices are always better in the long run.
This is another attempt to project despicable behavior on the opposition, Alinsky!
Rutherford, I love ya. And I love to tussle with ya too.
Rutherford, the case I refer to where the inJustice Department is going after the Maricopa Community Colleges is one where the employer was taking pains to make sure they were only hiring people who were legal to work in the U.S.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-immigration-employers-20100904,0,5792545.story
Get a grip, willya?
We’re not asking businesses to police anything
YES — that is exactly what the employers are being forced into doing with the “stricter penalties on businesses who hire illegals” being dreamed up by stupid and disingenuous lawmakers. And we know why they are doing it.
If the employees are the ones penalized WHILE the very illegals in question are allowed to so easily come and go as they damn well please, fostered by a flaccid and obfuscatory federal government, then the employees ARE exactly who are forced in to becoming the police.
Reason it out, Rutherford. Please. If you are honest with yourself then you will agree with the positions that BiW and others here are making in this blog post. Honestly think out this scenario and you can not disagree.
We’re asking them to comply with the law.
The feds don’t ask they punish. And in the process they also grab liberty and try to seize control of things where they have no moral or ethical right to seize control.
Punishing good citizens and tax payers who are trying to live and grow their wealth is about stealing liberty and burdening the free market. Employers might be following this law AS BEST THEY CAN with the RESOURCES they have (we’re talking about small businessmen and women here) and still be violating this stricter law, and then charged with penalties or forced out of business entirely. Yea. There’s a good use of taxpayer money! Sheesh!
And I could preach a dissertation on “the purpose of the law” and bore you to death. I don’t wanna kill you. I like you, Rutherford, so I won’t. I promise.
Quickly, from my perspective as a theologian, the purpose of the law in a secular society is to CURB OUTRAGEOUS & HARMFUL BEHAVIOR. The law (religious or secular) can not control anyone’s behavior. That is not reality. Only God has true and total control, using it if and when he chooses to use it. But the law can be a curb through incentives and disincentives or punishments.
Now about curbing the problem of illegal migration. The HIGHER CURB MUST ALWAYS will be the BEHAVIOR of the ILLEGAL. Here is why.
If the federal government uses words on a page that are made into laws that focus on PUNISHING the employer, it tries to curb employer behavior without buttressing up the curb on the illegals at the same time. That higher curb on the employers with no attention to the curb on illegals causes the curb on illegals to fall into disrepair.
The employees may be totally obedient to these stricter laws as best they can because of their high curb, but there is chaos and anarchy going on and employers have no ability to curb illegal behaviors — only whether they employ them — which is a small part of the illegal activity we need to be concerned about.
If the lazy federal government does not curb illegals, especially hardened criminals, by arresting them, putting them in prison or sending them back across the border… and instead focuses on curbing employers, then they are spending their time punishing EMPLOYERS — THE EASIER MARK resulting in more economic woes and more crime, not less.
Meanwhile back at the ranch, the feds are not dealing with the illegals. So metaphorically illegals have driven over their curb and are driving their 4WD trucks all over our pretty lawns, ranch lands, killing pedestrians, herds, crops, wrecking homes and rose gardens, robbing from us, bringing in drugs, raping women, threatening and killing innocent ranchers and farmers, etc… and you think penalizing the employers with their higher curb is going to stop that?!!
Koolaid drinking moron thinking? Or drone thinking?
Take your pick.
It’s the job of the feds with all their guns, God ordained authority, and stronger threats to send illegal immigrants especially their more hardened criminal ones BACK to their own countries.
Now iffin the government would give employers guns and ammo and will support them with this higher curb, well, I’m in favor of that one. We can call it the ‘loony-license!”
*loads Kimber with 45 cal FMJ* *snigger*
*not gonna happen in God’s lifetime* snigger*
When some of you talk about secession, you’re tripping over into loony land. I swear American politics lately has become a costume party. Some of you are dressed in Revolutionary garb and the rest of you are dressed circa 1860.
There is nothing wrong with TALKING about secession. No one has done it yet. Texas holds the unique right to secede. I’m not good at explaining it — don’t have all the details in my head, but I can tell you that we negotiated this stipulation BEFORE we became a state. We were a country before a state — the Republic of Texas. We earned that right to be a country through the blood of brave Texans.
All our states are being threatened by the federal government. Arizona is our ‘archetype’ right now. WE states get to limit the ability of the federal government to come in and tell us what to do. If the federal government isn’t doing it’s job, we have the moral obligation and legal right to TALK about and consider our options and hope that the feds are listening.
You wanna see that as LOONY — go ahead. I like the opposition to see me with my weapons of words and metal and be threatened by loony. Be threatened to back the hell off and let us have the liberty that God granted us. The feds GRANT NOTHING! And I’ll take loony over Sanctimony any day!
Don’t mess with Texas.
“Because Dems have been vigorously posing the clap-trap that the law will profile hispanics, when it specifically prohibits profiling.”
Truth matters not to drones.
Cathy,
These drones want all the states to be slaves to the Federal government. They dont believe in the Constitution or state rights.
Cathy,
You expect too much from these drones. That they still support this this regime after 19 months should tell you all you need to know.
There is nothing wrong with TALKING about secession. No one has done it yet. Texas holds the unique right to secede. I’m not good at explaining it — don’t have all the details in my head, but I can tell you that we negotiated this stipulation BEFORE we became a state. We were a country before a state — the Republic of Texas. We earned that right to be a country through the blood of brave Texans.
All our states are being threatened by the federal government. Arizona is our ‘archetype’ right now. WE states get to limit the ability of the federal government to come in and tell us what to do. If the federal government isn’t doing it’s job, we have the moral obligation and legal right to TALK about and consider our options and hope that the feds are listening.
You wanna see that as LOONY — go ahead. I like the opposition to see me with my weapons of words and metal and be threatened by loony. Be threatened to back the hell off and let us have the liberty that God granted us. The feds GRANT NOTHING! And I’ll take loony over Sanctimony any day!
Don’t mess with Texas.
You forgot to mention that we also have Keller’s Drive In and Babe’s Fried Chicken.
You forgot to mention that we also have Keller’s Drive In and Babe’s Fried Chicken.
That’s your job. Glad you showed up.
Now, you get pie.
Ah, you misunderstood me. My snide reference to Michele involved her request to investigate which Congressmen were pro-America vs anti-America … so I was saying, in the same vein let’s investigate which corporations are pro-America and anti-America. I actually was making no connection to Bachmann and any of her own corporate behavior.
If you knowingly hire illegals you should get your ass kicked.
‘Knowingly’ is the operative word. If you read what I wrote you will see that never did I advocate ‘knowingly hiring illegals.’ Seems your comment is a tad disingenuous.
Maybe you are not an entrepreneur. If the term seems to not fit you, or you chafe at the idea of being pretentious, then there is nothing wrong with simply being a small businessman and leaving it at that.
I didn’t misunderstand you. I knew you were making a snotty remark about Bachmann. You need not try to back peddle and try to change your words.
THIS:
“I’m going to go out on a limb here and sound like Michele Bachmann, but I think we need to investigate which businesses have America’s best interests at heart and which ones will do anything for a buck. ”
IS NOT THE SAME AS THIS:
“…reference to Michele involved her request to investigate which Congressmen were pro-America vs anti-America … so I was saying, in the same vein let’s investigate which corporations are pro-America and anti-America.”
One is about businesses — people who create wealth and pay taxes. The other is about congressmen — people who work for us, the taxpayers.
I’m starting to see what others have commented on. You seem to have issues with strong conservative women who like liberty and would fight for it. Palin and Bachmann are not your kind of gals, huh? Strong Christian, conservative, confident, competent, enjoy poking fun, and being a bit mouthy. Maybe I’m not either, so I know where I stand now. But you get to be snide, though. I get it.
Well there might not be anything “wrong” about talking about secession but it certainly is loony. Secession should put a bad taste in the mouth of any patriotic American since the only time it has occurred in our history involved the refusal to abandon that Peculiar Institution which demoted men to obedient animals.
Sorry folks, The United States of America is not a loosely coordinated network of independent states. We maintain a fine balance between states rights and federal responsibilities. The Fed trumps the States when the future of the country as a whole is at stake, and that is as it should be.
And quite frankly, what has pissed me off since January 2009 is the sudden wake up call that this “other” President Barack Obama has given to all the States rights advocates. Our Fed has always been powerful. Ask any far left liberal and they will tell you there are not enough discernible differences between the Bush and Obama administrations. Yet all of a sudden everybody’s panties are in a knot over the power of the Fed.
Prediction: If Obama is indeed a one-term President, his Republican successor will not be all that different and all the States rights protests will cease. I’ll leave it to everyone’s imagination why this will happen.
Ehhh, no actually it doesn’t. A VERY quick Google to a PRO-secession web site disproves this.
This heavily popularized bit of Texas folklore finds no corroboration where it counts: No such provision is found in the current Texas Constitution[1] (adopted in 1876) or the terms of annexation.[2] However, it does state (in Article 1, Section 1) that “Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States…” (note that it does not state “…subject to the President of the United States…” or “…subject to the Congress of the United States…” or “…subject to the collective will of one or more of the other States…”) Texas Secede! FAQ
If you take the pro-secession view, Texas has the same right to secede as any other state. Nothing special there.
We maintain a fine balance between states rights and federal responsibilities.
No. We don’t, and we haven’t in a very long time. The Feds believe, and act as if nothing they want to claim jurisdiction over should be denied to them. That is what underlies a great deal of preemption jurisprudence.
Do you know what “blue sky” law is, R? You might bing the term and learn how Fediathan claimed jusrisdiction over something that was in the control of the various states for decades.
If there was a balance, there would be no Department of Education, as it was never intended to be a Federal Prerogative, but instead very much a local issue.
I might also challenge you to tell me where the Feds get the jurisdiction to form and maintain the FBI as it currently exists.
It’s also quite disturbing, Cathy the way you frame the argument as the Fed “threatening” the States. You act like we live under an oppressive regime ala Saddam Hussein.
Regarding immigration in particular, the Fed needs to do a better job at handling the problem. No doubt there. It needs to be worked out in a cooperative manner. Setting the Fed up as “the enemy” serves no purpose whatsoever.
R, when a law enforcement arm of the federal government starts no less than three different lawsuits against a state and /or its component offices/institutions, it isn’t a freindly gesture. When its done by people who do things the Chicago Way, it is intended to send a message…and it isn’t a love letter.
They have no interest in doing their job with regard to immigration. They see too many potential voters there to bother with actually enforcing the law.
This is so incredibly disingenuous. The law can explicitly prohibit whatever it wants …. what will be the valid grounds for suspecting someone is illegal? Does the law state that EVERY person pulled over henceforth shall have their citizenship/legality questioned? If so then fine. If not then what are the criteria for the investigation? If you don’t think it is “driving while brown” then I have some great swamp land in Florida for you to develop.
How about you read the law, and tell us where it supports profiling? After all, it is virtually a word-for-word repete of the federal statute. How can it be presumed neutral if the Feds do it, but automatically deemed a profiling tool for eeeevvvvviiiillll racist mofo state law enforcement in the hands of Arizona?
Tread lightly R- 90% of your other arguments on a whole list of issues is predicated on the notion that ‘the law says…’ mantra. The fact that you’ll pooh-pooh S.B. 1070 because it simply echo’s federal law is more than a little disingenuous.
Oh by the way …. G, one can be a formerly laid off employee and be completely rational. In fact, sometimes getting laid off does wonders for taking the rose-colored glasses off.
There are some great companies out there who care about their employees and there are others who would throw anyone under the bus for a buck.
And that is their right and perogative. You, nor the unions, have any right to say otherwise. They pay a price for that behavior, whether through a diminished hiring pool as folks stay away, bad PR, etc.
Cathy, currently I am a “small business man and an entrepreneur” although I find the latter word incredibly pretentious. Sooooo, I sincerely hope that the Fed will bust my ass if I start knowingly hiring illegals to do cheap labor for me.
It’s also quite disturbing, Cathy the way you frame the argument as the Fed “threatening” the States. You act like we live under an oppressive regime ala Saddam Hussein.
The fed is threatening us. That’s not me ACTing like we live under oppression of the likes of Saddam Hussein. A bit of a jump in logic, Rutherford.
Obama threatens whomever he chooses. He is a tyrant at heart and has a record of punishing Red States and anyone who gets in his way or calls him out. If you don’t see that, you are lying to yourself.
But if my saying that ‘disturbs’ you then too bad. My comment about feds being threatening is a far cry from calling Obama and his ilk Saddam Hussein types. Sheesh. Again, you seem to push for making others appear to be loony or too emotional. What is your need?
Setting the Fed up as “the enemy” serves no purpose whatsoever.
I have no power to ‘set up the Fed’ as the enemy. They either are or they aren’t based upon the actions being taken against the states presently. They do a fine job of fighting with the states without my involvement. Coming after Arizona and Texas and others with lawsuits etc. I don’t think I used the word ‘enemy’ either. You did. Pushing for emotion, are you? But if the federal government as directed by the thug Obama continues to threaten the very people of this country, then we are responsible for pointing it out. It serves a very important purpose and those of us courageous enough to stand on the front lines and speak out should be thanked. You’re welcome.
I also understand the issue of secession. All states can secede if they choose to take that chance. You are correct. However, Texas’ entered the union with some unique stipulations made when we became a state. For example, Texas kept it’s public lands. They were not granted to the feds. And Texas has the right, if we choose, to annex ourselves to create more states. I think we’d end up with a total of 5, but it might only be 4. I don’t recall the details. There was also another detail about our ability to pull out, but I’m not able to find that information in my stuff right now. I read about this very thing years ago in a history book but don’t have that book anymore and not everything is on the internet. Suffice it to say that Texas probably has a better chance of a successful secession, if we choose to embark on that journey. I’m not necessarily wanting it, but we all are getting pushed and THREATENED and it is a good thing for us to consider our options and talk about it. Sometime in the past year or so Governor Rick Perry was even poking Obama in the eye by suggesting it as a possible alternative for Texas. Tenacious and tough that we are, we might just pull it off.
Amazing how you guys still try debating with dishonest drones. Seriously.
Cathy, currently I am a “small business man and an entrepreneur” although I find the latter word incredibly pretentious.
Give me a fucking break. We all know you’re unemployed and looking. You told us so.
Are you now telling me you’re against the FBI?
I’ve been too busy lazying around (contradiction in terms?) this Labor Day weekend to keep up with this thread so I apologize if I don’t address any q’s that might have been posed to me (or about me). I’ll try to get to a few tonight. For example, my next comment will go to Dick …
R,
Don’t hyperventilate, Nancy, and don’t pretend that the question isn’t legitimate just because you never thought to ask it.
Where in the name of great honking Chuthulu does the Federal Government get the authority to establish a law enforcement agency with as wide a jurisdiction as the FBI has? Its a simple question.
Dick, I can see why you may have misunderstood me and hell … maybe I’m just playing a semantic game to keep from jumping off the roof. If you look back at a prior thread I told someone (I think Agiledog) that I have been chronically “underemployed” for three years. I do have a business. I have had clients. They are so few and far between that I might as well be unemployed. I am presently looking for clients (and I’m not opposed to an outright job offer from a company if that were to happen).
So, you’re right, but with all due respect, you’re wrong.
When it comes to this debate thread, I’m simply telling Cathy that since I do run a small business (that as I said, makes next to nothing) I am not oblivious to the concerns of small business owners.
I told someone (I think Agiledog) that I have been chronically “underemployed” for three years.
Yeah, I do remember you saying you were trying to start one.
How is business?
“Give me a fucking break. We all know you’re unemployed and looking. You told us so.”
Drones lie all the time. You should know that by now.
Yes, and the mainstream media for which you have little respect labeled Mr. Perry a wackjob. His suggesting Texas might secede hardly makes it a sane idea.
Perry was the best campaign director Al Gore ever had.
Never, ever trust that rat bastard.
Regarding AZ, I have always said two things. First, that no matter how the state law is phrased, it is difficult to enforce without accusations of profiling. Second, I think Jan Brewer bought herself unnecessary political heat by signing a redundant law. Everyone acknowledges that Fed law already deals with this. Why pass a redundant law the enforcement of which will be no less problematic than the Federal one?
To draw attention to the fact that the Feds are selectively enforcing it, which is to say, they aren’t doing a very good job of enforcing it. When you’re the government, and one of your arguments against the law is that you believe this puts the state in the position of deciding federal priorities, then you lost any legitimacy in claiming it is an area of federal jurisdiction preempting any other entity from enforcing it.
Are you now telling me you’re against the FBI?
Was that how you interpreted that?
I thought it was more about something like “the ends does not justify the means,” but someone else made the point, so I’m not speaking for them… just saying, Rutherford, that this is how I interpreted it AND I’m concerned about all this…
It seems to be about encroachment into liberty. Any use of force, any agency, arm of the government, hell! even any of those czars that are appointed all are elements that need to be viewed as to whether they do more harm by establishing a precedence.
When do these ‘arms’ of the government get amputated when they are no longer needed for the ‘crises’ for which they may have been established? NEVER??? Fuckin-A!
And just for the record — although I’ve not been in this blog very long — I never read that you were unemployed, Rutherford, but ‘underemployed’ which I accept at face value, just sayin’…
I wondered how long it would take you to play the “you don’t like conservative women” card. I find faults with much of conservatism and to the extent that it often does not serve the best interests of women IMHO, I find it odd that any woman would sign on to its charter.
I’ll put Claire McCaskill against ten Michele Bachmann’s and Sarah Palin’s any day.
and to the extent that it often does not serve the best interests of women IMHO,
Really? Perhaps you should unpack that statement…unless like so many liberal memes, it is all hat and no cattle.
I’ll put Claire McCaskill against ten Michele Bachmann’s and Sarah Palin’s any day.
I’d be interested in hearing how you arrive at your conclusion and on what basis you judge Claire such a clear winner. A factor of ten is substantial.
That would require you to define your ethics, values and/or priorities and show how Claire rates higher on your values/fundamentals/behaviors scale. Avoiding epithets would be key if you want to actually convince anyone that you are serious as opposed to just throwing poo at conservative women as many have done during the past few years ad nauseum. In all cultures it’s easy to throw poo at women. It’s been done to the ‘weaker vessel’ pretty much since the beginning of time.
And it appeared to me that you were playing the “I don’t like conservative women” just a few too many times. That is why I brought it to your attention… not the other way around.
Your logic on this one escapes me. How does the argument that a state cannot dictate federal priorities in any way bear on how the fed exercises its priorities. They are two different trains of thought.
BTW … I apologize, I answered an FBI question over on the Freedom thread … hell I may have answered a couple of thing here over there. I’ll try to keep better track here on in.
You know one obvious example that will get me burned at the stake in BiW-Town. Why would a woman identify with a party that wants to get between her and her doctor?
Notice how the drones think that a women’s freedom comes down to aborting a baby? I guess its ok for the government to come between a woman and her doctor when it comes to life saving medicine. Drones are such vile repugnant fascists.
This is exactly why the states need to the the Federal government to screw off.
http://www.kgun9.com/Global/story.asp?S=13104666
More thuggery from illegals
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100908/ap_on_re_us/us_fatal_police_shooting
[...] Rather than addressing the problem by actually starting to enforce or vigorously enforcing borders and the immigration laws, the administration, through its top legal official, Attorney General Eric Holder, took it upon itself to instead sue the state of Arizona, claiming that Arizona could not enforce the law that the Administration clearly would not, based on the idea of Federal preemption. This rather absurd notion was made more absurd by the fact that the state actually DID have a role in enforcing the law as it existed. This was an extraordinary moment in American Politics. Never before had an Administration so brazenly made an argument that could be succinctly stated as “We cannot have the states telling us to actually do our jobs, and enforce the laws regarding… [...]