Arizona bill 1070

[anitram]

Oh,oh. Expect more thinly-veiled threats from the constitutional teacher-in-chief against that "unelected group of people" in the black robes.

Expect crickets from the "activist judges" mouth-breathers on the right.

 

[INDY500]

papers, please.

But now, the adminstration will stop the deportation of young people who meet these criteria: 1.) Came to the United States under the age of sixteen; 2.) Have continuously resided in the United States for a least five years preceding the date of this memorandum and are present in the United States on the date of this memorandum; 3.) Are currently in school, have graduated from high school, have obtained a general education development certificate, or are honorably discharged veterans of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States; 4.) Have not been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, multiple misdemeanor offenses, or otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety; 5.) Are not above the age of thirty.

Hey Irvine, how do you propose we verify all this?

Anyway, a Supreme Court ruling on Eric Holder's challenge is due soon.

 

[financeguy]

Racist, definition (Liberal Dictionary):

One who puts interests of own countrymen and women ahead of foreigners' interests.

 

[digitize]

I always thought that tough immigration restrictions, an extremely powerful form of protectionism, were a little odd coming from the party of free markets. It's not illegal immigration - it's civil disobedience against big government intervention into the labor market!

 

[BVS]

Racist, definition (Liberal Dictionary):

One who puts interests of own countrymen and women ahead of foreigners' interests.

So for the sake of continuing this humor, what is the conservative definition of racist?

 

[financeguy]

So for the sake of continuing this humor, what is the conservative definition of racist?

The belief that a particular race is superior to others, and/or the belief that races other than whites require state and taxpayer-sanctioned assistance in order to be equal.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I always thought that tough immigration restrictions, an extremely powerful form of protectionism, were a little odd coming from the party of free markets. It's not illegal immigration - it's civil disobedience against big government intervention into the labor market!

Small government is a hit or miss thing with conservatives nowadays, it seems. Government interfering with business interests=overreach.

Government controlling who you can marry or what women can do with their bodies or who can come into our country or who can be put to death=totally fine.

Also, to financeguy and the "liberal" definition of racism...no. Just...no.

 

[financeguy]

Also, to financeguy and the "liberal" definition of racism...no. Just...no.

What you fail to realise is that globalisation has proved itself to be the most spectacularly ruinous mistake, made collectively by Western nations, since the appeasement that led to the Second World War. 500 years of Western global hegemony are coming to an end, before our eyes. Even Hitler never managed to inflict that.

It is simply illlogical for someone in your position - and I'm only going on the basis of your own posts here - to be pro-globalisation at this point. It might make you feel better, but it doesn't advance your interests - or theirs, the immigrants you like to think globalisation helps.

It is different for the likes of Anitram or Irvine - it suits their interests to argue in favour of mobility of labour, and unsurprisingly, they do. Actually, the metropolitan liberal upper middle class elite are laughing at people like you, while pretending to be your friends and allies.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I'm not entirely sure how you think globalization is hurting people like me. Elaborate, please?

And the conservatives aren't exactly any better. The GOP talks about being friends to the "working class", supporting the "real Americans", but their policies speak otherwise all the time. I agree that there are people on the left who don't truly get what it's like for people like my family to struggle, but let's not pretend that the conservatives always "get it", either.

I honestly don't feel any sort of threat from immigrants who look for work. I do feel much more of a threat from the corporate interests who hoard all the money at the top and don't support those who work underneath them to keep the business going. When my parents lost jobs, it wasn't immigrants coming in who caused them to lose the jobs, it was the corporate people coming in and taking over.

My dad worked in radio. He had nothing good to say about Clear Channel or the corporate people who came in and automated the stations and kicked guys like him out (meanwhile the people who did kiss corporate butt got to stay. One guy still has a job at a station my dad worked at here in town. He's been in trouble for drunk driving and other various offenses over the years. But because he "plays the game" for the corporate people and doesn't go off and do his own thing, he gets to stay and gets his stuff overlooked). When the KMart in one of the towns I lived in closed, my mom left with no benefits or anything. Meanwhile, she found out that the CEO got something like 8 million dollars in money for himself. That money could've helped keep the store open, I'd think, and keep her job intact.

(I also find it funny that people bitch that all immigrants do is mooch off the system and are lazy and don't work and such, but then when they do try and look for work, and when they do get jobs, they're "stealing jobs" from people born and raised here. Which is it, guys?)

 

[financeguy]

I'm not entirely sure how you think globalization is hurting people like me. Elaborate, please?

2 million jobs exported to China? The lower middle class and working classes decimated? Please, you're an intelligent person, you don't need me to spell it out.

And the conservatives aren't exactly any better. The GOP talks about being friends to the "working class", supporting the "real Americans", but their policies speak otherwise all the time. I agree that there are people on the left who don't truly get what it's like for people like my family to struggle, but let's not pretend that the conservatives always "get it", either.

OF COURSE the mainstream GOP are pro-globalisation too, worse than the Dems in some ways. I wasn't attempting to argue otherwise.

I honestly don't feel any sort of threat from immigrants who look for work. I do feel much more of a threat from the corporate interests who hoard all the money at the top and don't support those who work underneath them to keep the business going.

Granted, it's corporate interests that drive it. That's true, and goes without saying - but on the rare occasion when we have a legislative move to tighten up on immigration, surely the native American working and middle class people should support it?

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

2 million jobs exported to China? The lower middle class and working classes decimated? Please, you're an intelligent person, you don't need me to spell it out.

Yeah, but that's not the case for everyone. My parents didn't work in jobs that got shipped overseas.

And again, that's the corporate people causing that problem. They don't want to pay people here at home proper wages, so they'll go overseas and get cheap labor. Yell at them, not the average everyday people overseas who are desperate for work and will find anything that they can get. It's not their fault or their decision to make.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

OF COURSE the mainstream GOP are pro-globalisation too, worse than the Dems in some ways. I wasn't attempting to argue otherwise.

My apologies, then.

Granted, it's corporate interests that drive it. That's true, and goes without saying - but on the rare occasion when we have a legislative move to tighten up on immigration, surely the native American working and middle class people should support it?

Not necessarily, because that isn't going to solve the problem. If we were doing that in connection with also keeping an eye on corporations so they don't abuse their power, maybe we could talk, then. But so far it just seems we focus on the immigration side and nothing else. It's an issue, yes, but it's not the only issue.

Plus, I'm often skeptical of tighter immigration laws because even if it's not the intent of the lawmakers, it's going to come off as racially motivated in some ways. I don't see anyone harassing any illegal immigrants here from European countries (and they've been here, probably are here now). But we just assume Mexicans are most likely here illegally, and that's not always the case.

And if immigrants are coming here and working hard and doing their best to try and get a good life going here, I don't begrudge them that, I think they should be left alone. If people come here and cause trouble, those are whom we should deal with. I also think about the fact that some people who come here are fleeing areas that are troubled, and I get that in those instances legal means to get into the country probably aren't the first thing on their mind sometimes.

 

[financeguy]

Plus, I'm often skeptical of tighter immigration laws because even if it's not the intent of the lawmakers, it's going to come off as racially motivated in some ways. I don't see anyone harassing any illegal immigrants here from European countries (and they've been here, probably are here now). But we just assume Mexicans are most likely here illegally, and that's not always the case.

And if immigrants are coming here and working hard and doing their best to try and get a good life going here, I don't begrudge them that, I think they should be left alone. If people come here and cause trouble, those are whom we should deal with. I also think about the fact that some people who come here are fleeing areas that are troubled, and I get that in those instances legal means to get into the country probably aren't the first thing on their mind sometimes.

Wow, you really have been drinking the liberal kool-aid, haven't ya?

In that case, I recommend that, in accordance with the dicates of your guilty middle class white conscience, you continue voting in favour of all pro-immigration candidates, for fear that if you don't, somehow, somewhere, a brown person might be offended. And that'd be the worst thing ever, right?

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Wow, you really have been drinking the liberal kool-aid, haven't ya?

In that case, I recommend that, in accordance with the dicates of your guilty middle class white conscience, you continue voting in favour of all pro-immigration candidates, for fear that if you don't, somehow, somewhere, a brown person might be offended. And that'd be the worst thing ever, right?

Middle class? Ha! I'm lower middle class at best. My mom and I are living on the top floor of someone else's house in a small apartment in a not so peaceful end of town. The closest I've been to a middle-class suburb is when I've visited friends who live in such a setting.

And you can't deny that that doesn't happen. It has nothing to do with guilt, it has to do with the fact that that crap happens and it's not fair or right. Focusing heavily on Hispanic people and blaming them for all our economic woes won't solve our problems. Every town I've lived in, the minority population was mostly made up of Hispanics. And yet any job problems my family had had nothing whatsoever to do with immigrants coming in and taking them. They had to do with corporate fuckups and favortism within the companies. And sometimes, just really bad luck of the draw that nobody could control. It happens. It sucks, but it happens.

I know people my age who have children and are unemployed, but they won't go work at a fast food restaurant because it won't pay them much (which is true, if you're trying to raise a family, fast food isn't going to bring in the big bucks that will easily take care of that). But if an immigrant takes that job they don't want to do, you know they'll be the first ones bitching about immigrants "taking their jobs". Yeah. The ones YOU didn't want, remember? And I never said we shouldn't discuss working things out with immigration, to protect both the immigrants and the native Americans. But if we're going to deal with immigration, we need to look at ALL immigrants, not just a select type of immigrant. That just seems reasonable to me, I don't get why it doesn't to other people.

I've held that belief about immigration for as long as I've been able to understand the issue, which is pretty much nearly my whole 27 years on this earth. So if I drank any kool-aid I apparently did it pretty young.

Or, you know, I was just raised with a sense of fairness. Whichever.

 

[anitram]

It is different for the likes of Anitram or Irvine - it suits their interests to argue in favour of mobility of labour, and unsurprisingly, they do. Actually, the metropolitan liberal upper middle class elite are laughing at people like you, while pretending to be your friends and allies.

You're really starting to piss me off.

"the likes of" - what is that?

I am in favour of globalization and fairly open immigration policies not because I'm upper middle class elite but because I came to Canada as a homeless refugee with NOTHING but my life and the clothes on my back and worked three times as hard as anyone to make it to where I am. It's incredibly rude and insulting of you to suggest that I laugh at the "lower classes" which I was a part of for most of my life and with whom I feel more culturally and socially at ease to this very day. My fight is for others like me to have similar opportunities and to succeed and join me where i am today. You have no idea what you're talking about on this topic and are exhibiting typical ignorance of a person who assumes and categorizes others. Give it a rest already.

 

[INDY500]

High court rejects parts of Ariz. immigration law – USATODAY.com

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court struck down three portions of Arizona's controversial immigration law on Monday, but allowed one of the key provisions to stand in a highly anticipated split decision.

Scalia, in comments from the bench, caustically described Obama's recently announced plans to ease deportation rules for some children of illegal immigrants.

"The president said at a news conference that the new program is 'the right thing to do' in light of Congress' failure to pass the administration's proposed revision of the Immigration Act. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of the Immigration Act that the president declines to enforce boggles the mind," Scalia said.

Although it is illegal to hire an illegal alien in this country only federal authorities may enforce that provision of the law apparently? So when the feds are derelict or simply lack resources to patrol the border, enforce workplace laws and deport those here illegally the border states just have to pay the price I guess.

 

[deep]

a little research on this decision shows it is a big loss for AZ 1070 and a big win for the Administration's challenge of that law.

3 of the 4 provisions were decisively struck down 5-3, it would have been 6-3

the one that was left standing, the court says once it gets challenged they may look at it again

Jun 25, 2012

Supreme Court strikes down key parts of Arizona law The Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional three parts of Arizona's controversial law aimed at cracking down on illegal immigrants.

The court, however, left standing the "check your papers" part of the law that requires state and local police to perform roadside immigration checks of people they've stopped or detained if a "reasonable suspicion" exists that they are in the country illegally.

The court indicated that section could face further legal challenges when implemented.

 

[Dfit00]

The major conclusion in all of this is that heat brutalizes people.

 

[Canadiens1131]

What you fail to realise is that globalisation has proved itself to be the most spectacularly ruinous mistake, made collectively by Western nations, since the appeasement that led to the Second World War.

Do you believe that a life of piecemeal rural subsistence farming is more advantageous to an individual in a developing nation than earning a relatively better wage in a manufacturing-based industrial hub, or should we just quarantine the "lessor" nations of the world and let them work out their own science for building infrastructure, combating things like malaria, or getting out of the pre-information age?

 

[Canadiens1131]

High court rejects parts of Ariz. immigration law – USATODAY.com

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court struck down three portions of Arizona's controversial immigration law on Monday, but allowed one of the key provisions to stand in a highly anticipated split decision.

Scalia, in comments from the bench, caustically described Obama's recently announced plans to ease deportation rules for some children of illegal immigrants.

"The president said at a news conference that the new program is 'the right thing to do' in light of Congress' failure to pass the administration's proposed revision of the Immigration Act. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of the Immigration Act that the president declines to enforce boggles the mind," Scalia said.

Although it is illegal to hire an illegal alien in this country only federal authorities may enforce that provision of the law apparently? So when the feds are derelict or simply lack resources to patrol the border, enforce workplace laws and deport those here illegally the border states just have to pay the price I guess.

Justice Scalia joined the opinion of the Court, but also wrote a concurring opinion which was joined by Justice Alito in full and by Justice Thomas in part. Scalia addressed Justice Stevens' dissent, specifically with regard to the original understanding of the First Amendment. Scalia stated that Stevens' dissent was "in splendid isolation from the text of the First Amendment...It never shows why 'the freedom of speech' that was the right of Englishmen did not include the freedom to speak in association with other individuals, including association in the corporate form."

via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission

If that is the particular guy on the SCOTUS you are getting behind, good luck, bud. Your country is going to need a rape kit in ten years to figure out what happened to it.

 

[Irvine511]

Scalia might as well have his own show on Fox.

 

[Irvine511]

clearly.

Justice Scalia must resign

By E.J. Dionne Jr., Wednesday, June 27, 12:21 PM

Justice Antonin Scalia needs to resign from the Supreme Court.

He’d have a lot of things to do. He’s a fine public speaker and teacher. He’d be a heck of a columnist and blogger. But he really seems to aspire to being a politician — and that’s the problem.

So often, Scalia has chosen to ignore the obligation of a Supreme Court justice to be, and appear to be, impartial. He’s turned “judicial restraint” into an oxymoronic phrase. But what he did this week, when the court announced its decision on the Arizona immigration law, should be the end of the line.

Not content with issuing a fiery written dissent, Scalia offered a bench statement questioning President Obama’s decision to allow some immigrants who were brought to the United States illegally as children to stay. Obama’s move had nothing to do with the case in question. Scalia just wanted you to know where he stood.

“After this case was argued and while it was under consideration, the secretary of homeland security announced a program exempting from immigration enforcement some 1.4 million illegal immigrants,” Scalia said. “The president has said that the new program is ‘the right thing to do’ in light of Congress’s failure to pass the administration’s proposed revision of the immigration laws. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of federal immigration law that the president declines to enforce boggles the mind.”

What boggles the mind is that Scalia thought it proper to jump into this political argument. And when he went on to a broader denunciation of federal policies, he sounded just like an Arizona Senate candidate.

“Arizona bears the brunt of the country’s illegal immigration problem,” the politician-justice proclaimed. “Its citizens feel themselves under siege by large numbers of illegal immigrants who invade their property, strain their social services, and even place their lives in jeopardy. Federal officials have been unable to remedy the problem, and indeed have recently shown that they are simply unwilling to do so.

“Arizona has moved to protect its sovereignty — not in contradiction of federal law, but in complete compliance with it.” Cue the tea party rally applause.

As it happens, Obama has stepped up immigration enforcement. But if the 76-year-old justice wants to dispute this, he is perfectly free as a citizen to join the political fray and take on the president. But he cannot be a blatantly political actor and a justice at the same time.

Unaccountable power can lead to arrogance. That’s why justices typically feel bound by rules and conventions that Scalia seems to take joy in ignoring. Recall a 2004 incident. Three weeks after the Supreme Court announced it would hear a case over whether the White House needed to turn over documents from an energy task force that Dick Cheney had headed, Scalia went off on Air Force Two for a duck-hunting trip with the vice president.

Scalia scoffed at the idea that he should recuse himself. “My recusal is required if . . . my ‘impartiality might reasonably be questioned,’ ” he wrote in a 21-page memo. Well, yes. But there was no cause for worry, Scalia explained, since he never hunted with Cheney “in the same blind or had other opportunity for private conversation.”

Don’t you feel better? And can you just imagine what the right wing would have said if Vice President Biden had a case before the court and went duck hunting with Justice Elena Kagan?

Then there was the speech Scalia gave at Switzerland’s University of Fribourg a few weeks before the court was to hear a case involving the rights of Guantanamo detainees.

“I am astounded at the world reaction to Guantanamo,” he declared in response to a question. “We are in a war. We are capturing these people on the battlefield. We never gave a trial in civil courts to people captured in a war. War is war and it has never been the case that when you capture a combatant, you have to give them a jury trial in your civil courts. It’s a crazy idea to me.”

It was a fine speech for a campaign gathering, the appropriate venue for a man so eager to brand the things he disagrees with as crazy or mind-boggling. Scalia should free himself to pursue his true vocation. We can then use his resignation as an occasion for a searching debate over just how political this Supreme Court has become.

E.J. Dionne Jr.: Justice Scalia should resign - The Washington Post

 

[INDY500]

Not content with issuing a fiery written dissent, Scalia offered a bench statement questioning President Obama’s decision to allow some immigrants who were brought to the United States illegally as children to stay. Obama’s move had nothing to do with the case in question.

It has everything to do with the case as does the Department of Homeland Security's canceling its agreements with Arizona law enforcement agencies allowing them to check the citizenship of suspected illegal immigrants. In other words, basically declaring amnesty for illegals in Arizona.

It's all related to Arizona 1070 and Scalia's question in his dissent.

Are the sovereign States at the mercy of the
federal Executive’s refusal to enforce the Nation’s immigration laws?

Neither you nor E.J Dionne dare answer that question but listen to how Scalia answers it. And this is very important as it gets to the core of judicial originalism.

A good way of answering that question is to ask: Would the States conceivably have entered into the Union if the Constitution itself contained the Court’s holding? Imagine a provision—perhaps inserted right after Art. I, §8, ci. 4, the Naturalization Clause—which included among the enumerated powers of Congress “To establish Limitations upon Immigration that will be exclusive and that will be enforced only to the extent the President deems appropriate.” The delegates to the Grand Convention would have rushed to the exits from Independence Hall.

That is not only brilliant but no doubt true and a reminder of how far off the constitutional rails this country has strayed. No wonder the Left despises him.

 

[the iron horse]

It has everything to do with the case as does the Department of Homeland Security's canceling its agreements with Arizona law enforcement agencies allowing them to check the citizenship of suspected illegal immigrants. In other words, basically declaring amnesty for illegals in Arizona.

It's all related to Arizona 1070 and Scalia's question in his dissent.



Neither you nor E.J Dionne dare answer that question but listen to how Scalia answers it. And this is very important as it gets to the core of judicial originalism.



That is not only brilliant but no doubt true and a reminder of how far off the constitutional rails this country has strayed. No wonder the Left despises him.

I agree

 

[anitram]

Neither you nor E.J Dionne dare answer that question but listen to how Scalia answers it. And this is very important as it gets to the core of judicial originalism.

This really just shows how little you know about the history of originalism and when it surfaced its head, what it's been used for and how. Then again it probably would not bother you that originalism is political and politically motivated tool and unrelated to legal theory and legal analysis because it is used to justify your side's judicial activism (which of course you don't think exists, because only liberal judges do that).

I've read a lot of crap from people who know nothing about the law on this case in the last few days, I've gotta say. Can't wait for the Obamacare decision, I'm sure the commentary there is going to be quite the doozy.

 

[INDY500]

This really just shows how little you know about the history of originalism and when it surfaced its head, what it's been used for and how. Then again it probably would not bother you that originalism is political and politically motivated tool and unrelated to legal theory and legal analysis because it is used to justify your side's judicial activism (which of course you don't think exists, because only liberal judges do that).

I've read a lot of crap from people who know nothing about the law on this case in the last few days, I've gotta say. Can't wait for the Obamacare decision, I'm sure the commentary there is going to be quite the doozy.

In deciding constitutional law, Originalism is only what "legal theory" used to be before "legal theory" started giving case law precedent over the actual Constitution.

 

[anitram]

In deciding constitutional law, Originalism is only what "legal theory" used to be before "legal theory" started giving case law precedent over the actual Constitution.

In your professional legal opinion.

Perhaps you'd prefer the French civil law system.

 

[INDY500]

French civil law system.

Now speaking of, "nothing to do with the case in question."

 

[PhilsFan]

I agree

REALLY? THAT'S FUCKlNG GREAT.

We are so glad you stopped by to tell us this.

 

[INDY500]

Immature, rude, out of bounds, inappropriate, asinine... the list of adjectives to describe Phils' post are endless.