Obama administration to sue Arizona.

[applecorped]

It's the best in 20 years! Quit yer bitchin.

 

[dtugg]

So you agree it's in conflict but it's not? Or are you saying you actually agree there is a conflict, but you think the courts won't agree?

I think my statement stands on its own. If the statute was passed in a vacuum, one could interpret it that the states can only enforce laws in those situations. But as the 10th Circuit Court pointed out that is not what happened. And if you read their decision, they gave their reasons.

From reading the filing, the US's argument for preemption is more about the general immigration policy they're pursuing. They're saying that the Arizona law promotes a conflicting policy on how to deal with illegal immigration ("attrition") and would undermine the more comprehensive policy the US has been pursuing.

But it's the same overall argument. It's conflict preemption.

Wait. So the Obama administration is saying that because SB 1070 might conflict with laws that Congress may pass in the future that there is a conflict. Really?

 

[BeAChooser]

Wait. So the Obama administration is saying that because SB 1070 might conflict with laws that Congress may pass in the future that there is a conflict. Really?

I keep telling folks. Obama and his administration are Stuck On Stupid.

 

[applecorped]

I keep telling folks. Obama and his administration are Stuck On Stupid.

Maybe that SOS means something else.

 

[HarryHenderson]

I'm still mostly confused as to the 'exact reason' why the libs (here and elsewhere) are so adamantly opposed to this law. I mean, when was the last time you got so livid over some other state's enacting a law that ALSO WOULDN'T AFFECT YOU if you didn't actually live there?

<crickets>

Had I just recently shown up from Planet X, I'd have guessed you all were upset over some genuine insanity like, say, clubbing baby seals. No, seems you're all outraged over another state's law that (essentially) just reiterates on the state level something that's already ILLEGAL federally. I mean, it didn't criminalize something that was perfectly legal before. You do realize that, right? You also realize that not being caught immediately after committing a 'crime' doesn't let you off the hook for such, right? And if that crime is an ongoing endeavor (the illegal activity) maybe even especially so? Wait, is someone contending the manure-for-brains idea that there's NO 'illegal activity' actually taking place?

Is there some misunderstanding by whomever of you (opponents) as to the real reasons it was enacted in the first place? That being a prolonged and federal government-wide lack of proper enforcement by any/all of the federal entities originally charged with its administration. That such inaction has taken a real and actual toll on the state of Arizona (and its legal citizens) and thus the state's governance, mandated by their job description to uphold its legal citizens 'general well being', took necessary action.

Furthermore, that Arizona lawmakers were likely more than aware of the coming judicial and 'political' challenges and that it's possible that might have been their actual one true goal. To enhance the public's awareness of and garner enough federal lawmaker support for doing something about the serious problem that is 'illegal immigration'.

Using simple data from the DHS and Census web sites, Arizona is second only to California in the percentage of (estimated) illegal aliens within the population. Approximately 6.52%. CA has the highest at 6.57%. In AZ that's more than the percentage of the population that is 'Black' (4.2%) or 'Asian' (2.5%). And it's almost more than those two percentages combined. I'll re-state: Give or take a few fractions, there's more 'illegal aliens' in AZ than there are Asians AND Blacks combined. Yep, there's no problem there!

No, what it seems to me is occurring, although no lib here has yet admitted it (that I've seen - please cite if so), is that a genuine 'real world' solution to a genuine 'real world' problem simply conflicts with, and maybe even undermines, some insane left wing 'political agenda' that has been deemed more important (by the political left, including Obummer) than the actual 'health, safety and welfare' of the country's legal citizens.

I know some of you are hiding under the notion that this issue is simply one of 'states rights' and/or state law conflicting with federal law and/or any other manner of similar blah blah. But that's really all a bunch of hooey and phony nonsense isn't it?! It has to be as the oh-so enhanced level of 'indignation' coming from the left on this can't possibly be only about 'states rights' and crap. For anyone wanting to claim that as their 'real and true' motivation for their opposition to this law, you'll need to cite/refer/link to the last incident where you also 'took exception' (documented) to another state's enacting law(s) that 'conflicted' with your own personal 'states rights conflicting with federal law and other nonsense' compass.

<crickets again>

Oh wait, forget all that, it's about the inhumanity of 'racial profiling' huh?

NOT.

So anyway, are there any libs here that care to put aside their 'politically correct' inclinations and be really and truly honest about it?

 

[pipelineaudio]

In Arizona its not really seen so much as a liberal vs conservative issue, as the people most negatively affected by ILLEGAL (remember that word, everytime someone tries to dishonestly leave it out) immigration are the poor, minorities and legal immigrants.

Its more a rich vs poor issue

 

[Kopji]

I'm still mostly confused as to the 'exact reason' why the libs (here and elsewhere) are so adamantly opposed to this law. I mean, when was the last time you got so livid over some other state's enacting a law that ALSO WOULDN'T AFFECT YOU if you didn't actually live there?

Police chiefs spoke against the law fairly early. Their concern is that it would increase crime. I know that at least locally, there are both Republicans and Democrats against the law.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/26/AR2010052601200.html

<crickets>

Your post is not that good. Did you really read anything here? Sounds 'canned'.

Had I just recently shown up from Planet X, I'd have guessed you all were upset over some genuine insanity like, say, clubbing baby seals. No, seems you're all outraged over another state's law that (essentially) just reiterates on the state level something that's already ILLEGAL federally. I mean, it didn't criminalize something that was perfectly legal before. You do realize that, right? You also realize that not being caught immediately after committing a 'crime' doesn't let you off the hook for such, right? And if that crime is an ongoing endeavor (the illegal activity) maybe even especially so? Wait, is someone contending the manure-for-brains idea that there's NO 'illegal activity' actually taking place?

Sorry that was not very clear, not sure what your point was. I suspect I don't care.

Crossing the street against the red light is illegal, but people are not criminals for doing so. Do you understand that there is some general opposition for re-categorizing a vast swath of people as criminals?

Is there some misunderstanding by whomever of you (opponents) as to the real reasons it was enacted in the first place? That being a prolonged and federal government-wide lack of proper enforcement by any/all of the federal entities originally charged with its administration. That such inaction has taken a real and actual toll on the state of Arizona (and its legal citizens) and thus the state's governance, mandated by their job description to uphold its legal citizens 'general well being', took necessary action.

Count me as an opponent because I'd have to class this as fiction rather than non-fiction.

Furthermore, that Arizona lawmakers were likely more than aware of the coming judicial and 'political' challenges and that it's possible that might have been their actual one true goal. To enhance the public's awareness of and garner enough federal lawmaker support for doing something about the serious problem that is 'illegal immigration'.

What does 'more than aware' mean? Like super aware? Mega aware? Arizona has a long and fabled history of stupid things like this. The word is much more likely "unaware", in a similar if not identical manner as 'stupidly unaware' or incompetently unaware.

Using simple data from the DHS and Census web sites, Arizona is second only to California in the percentage of (estimated) illegal aliens within the population. Approximately 6.52%. CA has the highest at 6.57%. In AZ that's more than the percentage of the population that is 'Black' (4.2%) or 'Asian' (2.5%). And it's almost more than those two percentages combined. I'll re-state: Give or take a few fractions, there's more 'illegal aliens' in AZ than there are Asians AND Blacks combined. Yep, there's no problem there!

Sorry, this sounds really racist to me, what exactly is your point? That blacks and asians are inherently a lesser kind of citizen - just above illegal immigrants?

No, what it seems to me is occurring, although no lib here has yet admitted it (that I've seen - please cite if so), is that a genuine 'real world' solution to a genuine 'real world' problem simply conflicts with, and maybe even undermines, some insane left wing 'political agenda' that has been deemed more important (by the political left, including Obummer) than the actual 'health, safety and welfare' of the country's legal citizens.

Actual, if you believe the news it is Republican foot dragging that keeps anything from getting done right now.

Maybe slightly oversimplified, but there is an election coming up and the more that we ordinary citizens suffer under the evil Democrats, the better the chance Republicans will win in November and come to rescue us.

I took the time to explain a local perspective here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6071350&postcount=242

Something I did not mention was that Coconino is a "blue" county that also 'swings', so any pain and suffering that can be brought to bear here will just hurt the Democrats, not the Republicans who brought this particular plague. I am biased because the pain is both real and precisely identified where it comes from.

I know some of you are hiding under the notion that this issue is simply one of 'states rights' and/or state law conflicting with federal law and/or any other manner of similar blah blah. But that's really all a bunch of hooey and phony nonsense isn't it?! It has to be as the oh-so enhanced level of 'indignation' coming from the left on this can't possibly be only about 'states rights' and crap. For anyone wanting to claim that as their 'real and true' motivation for their opposition to this law, you'll need to cite/refer/link to the last incident where you also 'took exception' (documented) to another state's enacting law(s) that 'conflicted' with your own personal 'states rights conflicting with federal law and other nonsense' compass.

<crickets again>

Actually, I don't like being sued by my own federal government. I don't like having my taxes raised without so much of a say-so by an UNELECTED governor. I don't like the ugly racist talk that comes out of other nutcase politicians that seem to flourish here. A fifth grader with an aptitude in government could have predicted the boycotts and challenges to this ill conceived law.

Oh wait, forget all that, it's about the inhumanity of 'racial profiling' huh?

NOT.

So anyway, are there any libs here that care to put aside their 'politically correct' inclinations and be really and truly honest about it?

You might continue to be confused because you are wrong, and persist in thinking you are right instead of actually being right. This has been shown to contribute to confusion. Hope that was helpful.

 

[applecorped]

He swings! He misses!

 

[ZirconBlue]

I'm still mostly confused as to the 'exact reason' why the libs (here and elsewhere) are so adamantly opposed to this law. I mean, when was the last time you got so livid over some other state's enacting a law that ALSO WOULDN'T AFFECT YOU if you didn't actually live there?

Proposition 8. It's called caring about people other than yourself.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Wait. So the Obama administration is saying that because SB 1070 might conflict with laws that Congress may pass in the future that there is a conflict. Really?

No. They're saying that Arizona is trying to establish a competing immigration policy--one that differs and undermines the federal policy. The Supremacy Clause tells us that in this situation, the state cannot preempt the federal government.

The constitution also says that the power is vested in the U.S. Congress to establish a uniform naturalization policy. (And I've already cited Supreme Court cases that affirm that the treatment of all aliens is part of this naturalization authority.) A state law that, among other things, creates a new state misdemeanor for being in the country illegally is exactly the sort of non-uniformity the Constitutional is against.

And you're right that the courts could merely strike down the bits of the Arizona law that are in conflict, but they don't have to. They can strike down the entire thing. If that happened, Arizona would be free to pass another version that complies with the court's ruling.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

In Arizona its not really seen so much as a liberal vs conservative issue, as the people most negatively affected by ILLEGAL (remember that word, everytime someone tries to dishonestly leave it out)

I think it's dishonest to pretend there is no generic anti-immigrant sentiment behind the popularity of the Arizona law.

immigration are the poor, minorities and legal immigrants.

Its more a rich vs poor issue

I think it's more a red herring issue. I think it's simply politically expedient to take advantage of Tea Bagger sentiments (and out and out racism) to blame the woes of society on illegal immigrants.

I keep pointing out that federal enforcement of immigration laws is at a record high. Also, existing federal law already allows for state and local police to assist with this enforcement. So the problem this is meant to solve --that the federal government doesn't enforce immigration laws--doesn't actually exist.

It also could well thwart efforts at comprehensive (and uniform) immigration reform.

 

[Neally]

They're saying that Arizona is trying to establish a competing immigration policy--one that differs and undermines the federal policy. The Supremacy Clause tells us that in this situation, the state cannot preempt the federal government.

Robbing a federally insured bank is a federal crime. It's also a crime under the statutes of the State of Arizona. Should the Justice Department file a lawsuit against Arizona demanding that Arizona law enforcement officials cease enforcing Arizona's law against robbing banks because it undermines and preempts federal authority? Just asking.

 

[pipelineaudio]

I think it's dishonest to pretend there is no generic anti-immigrant sentiment behind the popularity of the Arizona law.

Well its dishonest to pretend there is no pro UFO abduction faction among the health care reform movement, but it has absolutely no significance either way.

If you mean that somehow, the people of arizona are magically more bigoted than anywhere else in the country (the same anywhere else these same people came from, likely within the last 5 years) I think you'd have to provide some real evidence. Its true that I've met racists in arizona, they were racists from california, new york and especially oregon, who now happened to live in arizona, but they were very marginalized people

 

[bynmdsue]

Lessee what the racist POS what wrote it has to say for hisselfhttp://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=ZjMyYTVjYWY1MmQyNDFmNzNhYmQ2OTdiODk1Mjc3N2Q%3D

 

[pipelineaudio]

Someone needed to write it, its not much different than what was being suggested for the last 15 years, so unless you can show some racism in the law or "behind the popularity of the Arizona law", then fail

by the way

again

What race is Mexican?

 

[rwguinn]

Someone needed to write it, its not much different than what was being suggested for the last 15 years, so unless you can show some racism in the law or "behind the popularity of the Arizona law", then fail

by the way

again

What race is Mexican?

apparently this one
http://www.anadelareguera.us/Ana-De-La-Reguera.jpg

gotta keep these kinds of folks out! They is difrunt frum ussn's

 

[BeAChooser]

Quote:
Using simple data from the DHS and Census web sites, Arizona is second only to California in the percentage of (estimated) illegal aliens within the population. Approximately 6.52%. CA has the highest at 6.57%. In AZ that's more than the percentage of the population that is 'Black' (4.2%) or 'Asian' (2.5%). And it's almost more than those two percentages combined. I'll re-state: Give or take a few fractions, there's more 'illegal aliens' in AZ than there are Asians AND Blacks combined. Yep, there's no problem there!

Sorry, this sounds really racist to me, what exactly is your point? That blacks and asians are inherently a lesser kind of citizen - just above illegal immigrants?

Is that really what you got out of that?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Is that really what you got out of that?

He asked you a question. So what is the "that" you refer to here?

If you're not being racist, then can you explain what the figures you cited were intended to signify?

If you are being racist, just keep on ducking the question.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

What race is Mexican?

Are you suggesting that if racism is not rational that it doesn't exist?

I'll happily cede that it's not rational, but if you think it doesn't exist, you're wearing blinders.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Being that mexican culture is completely inseparable from arizonans' self identity, and that so many of us are mexicans, this "racism" you bigots claim upon us is nothing but fairy dust, and yes, irrational for you to accuse us of