Poll: Should Obama Direct The DOJ To Also Sue Sanctuary Cities?

It is the exact same thing. If you go after Arizona for circumventing Federal immigration laws then you must also go after Sanctuary Cities too. Of course if the Obama administration does that then they may lose some Hispanic votes. Let us see what they do. I suspect they will do nothing.

Are sanctuaries in violation of federal law? I think we know the answer. How cruel of you to expect the federal government to enforce the law.

In fact sanctuary cities are violating federal laws. How can you not go after them? Az is not violating the law, they want to enforce and support the federal laws while sanctuary cities are acutal violating the federal law. How can the federal government not have done something against these cities? Why are the american taxpayer having to see funds sent to cities that refuse to enforce federal laws?

too bad we the people cannot file a class action lawsuit against the federal gov't for not enforcing the immigration laws to begin with

Disregarding the law, obstruction. The sanctuary cities should be prosecuted, federal funds taken away, and jail time for their actions. The federal government should be investigated, and officials should be fired, including the president. This president has shown that he does not uphold the constitution, and should be fired, his citizenship taken away, and deported.

what would you call the deliberate disregard of existing laws?

I call it the Federal Government's immigration policy.

The reason for the Feds not suing sanctuary cities is the same as the reason the Feds are suing Arizona -- it is this administration's policy to encourage illegal immigration and to grant amnesty to the 12 million illegal aliens that are already here.

12 million Democratic voters, and a few thousand more sneaking across that border every single day. It's a politician's dream come true!

azad, one for you, for thinking out of the box.

...thinking out of the box

Not really, that's the current conservative CW; still correct, in my estimation.

The whole idea of "sanctuary cities" is a myth...a term used to once again mislead people into believing that "criminals" are seeking sanctuary in certain parts of America...a term used to promote hate and fear in American people....a term based on lies...

“Sanctuary city” is not an accurate term for cities with community policing policies. The police who rely upon community policing policies do not provide "sanctuary" to undocumented immigrants—they already have the authority to arrest criminals regardless of immigration status, and they already work with DHS to identify criminal immigrants. The cities and states that actively encourage police to enforce civil immigration laws are the real “sanctuaries” for criminals, because they are alienating a segment of the community that experiences crime but is afraid to report it.

Debunking the Myth of "Sanctuary Cities": Community Policing Policies Protect Americans

The whole idea of "sanctuary cities" is a myth...a term used to once again mislead people into believing that "criminals" are seeking sanctuary in certain parts of America...a term used to promote hate and fear in American people....a term based on lies...

Just to be clear, anyone in this country illegally is a felon. The definition of a criminal is 'one who breaks the law.' You do understand that, right?

The rest of your points make some sense; it's true that an unfortunate side effect of some immigration laws is to make policing communities of illegal immigrants more difficult. Still, that's hardly an excuse to not have immigration laws at all.

anyone in this country illegally is a felon

Not true...overstaying a visa is a civil violation....and almost half of the undocumented immigrants present in the U.S. have overstayed visas. Here's the facts....

Immigration law is extremely complex, and is constantly changing. There are criminal and civil violations of immigration law. Civil violations include, for example, illegal presence and failure to depart after the expiration of a temporary visa. Criminal violations include illegal entry, re-entry after deportation, and failure to depart after an order of removal. To make matters more complicated, those in this last category are committing a criminal offense only if the government can show that they “willfully” failed to depart; but most removal orders are entered in absentia. If failure to depart is not “willful” (if, for example, the person was not aware that there was a removal order entered against them), the offense is a civil violation.

Immigration Law Enforcement by State and Local Police

There's a bank -- that shall remain nameless -- in my city that caters to illegals that work in the fields, construction, etc. They usually have a line almost wrapped around the building. they open accounts for illegals WITHOUT government issued ID and without a SSN. They use random numbers for the SSN -- and then do not run a credit check (because of course it would come back denied). There are all kinds of incentives that they are given. Everyone knows that most illegals are paid in cash and carry that cash with them. This bank is giving them ATM and debit cards for their deposits.

Of course, my husband and I have closed our accounts.

NOW, that is where Obama should be focusing his energy.

Should Obama Direct The DOJ To Also Sue Sanctuary Cities?

Of course he won't. Many of the sanctuary cities are Democratic. LOL. My state is a sanctuary state obviously with sanctuary cities and it is all Democratic.

-----------------------------------

redsfan--

Sanctuary cities is referring to a place that more or less harbors illegals.

You should have looked things up a bit a more.

Let us start with Special Order 40 true this was from 1979, but the writing is crystal clear.

Police order for Los Angeles, CA

Original Special Order 40 put into LAPD policy by former Chief of Police, Daryl Gates, on November 27, 1979

Bottom of page 1, under Procedure:

1. Enforcement of United States Immigration Laws - Officers shall not initiate police action with the objective of discovering the alien status of a person. Officers shall not arrest nor book persons for violation of title 8, section 1325 of the United States Immigration code (Illegal Entry).[3]

Sanctuary city

Sanctuary Cities Contentious for GOP

Non-Cooperation Policies: "Sanctuary" for Illegal Immigration

Sanctuary Cities Succumb to Blackmail

TANCREDO: Tale of two sanctuary cities

End for Criminal Illegal Immigrants' Sanctuary Cities: ICE's Department of Homeland Security's; Secure Communities Act of 2008/2010:

Colorado actually put up a Bill banning sanctuary policies in that state. Now obviously they exist for the state to put up a Bill.
Colorado Bill

Sanctuary policies for illegal aliens

Heck this is a map and list of sanctuary cities
SANCTUARY CITIES AND STATES
ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT INFORMATION RESOURCE

So what was that you were saying? Sanctuary cities were a myth? LOL yeah ok keep telling yourself that. If you enjoy your alternate reality good on ya.

redsfan--

Overstaying your visa is a criminal act.

Penalty for Overstaying a Visa

TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER II > Part IV > § 1227
§ 1227. Deportable aliens

Immigration and Nationality Act

Once again...contrary to lies and myths....here's some facts....

Being illegally present in the U.S. has always been a civil, not criminal, violation of the INA, and subsequent deportation and associated administrative processes are civil
proceedings.

Congressional Research Service (CRS), in an Apr. 6, 2006 report entitled "Immigration Enforcement Within the United States,"

You know what I find really bizarre? The fact that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, an agency of the federal government already has existing partnerships with several state and local law enforcement agencies including Maricopa county in Arizona whereby they delegate "immigration law enforcement functions, pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)".

The authority to do so falls under the Department of Homeland Security and is authorized by Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act entitled "Delegation of Immigration Authority".

Mariyam... what you fail to realize is that just by granting that authority... They never thought that a government agency would do WORK!I for one am betting that 287 will be the talk of the town in court... in this case! The Fed was more than willing to give this authority they now seem to claim total domain over willingly when they thought no one would really ENFORCE THE DAMN LAWS!

Afterall, AZ's law doesn't conflict with policy. JMHO.

policy is the constitution... if AZ's law doesn't conflict with the constitution then you should be welcoming the opportunity to prove it in court... why isn't that the reaction from the pro-AZ law crowd? Could it be that deep down they know it isn't constitutional?

Jim44

Mariyam...what you fail to realize is that just by granting that authority... They never thought that a government agency would do WORK!I for one am betting that 287 will be the talk of the town in court... in this case! The Fed was more than willing to give this authority they now seem to claim total domain over willingly when they thought no one would really ENFORCE THE DAMN LAWS!

So does that mean they all just did it to get the budget & grant money? Because how can they say only the federal government has dominion in these affairs while simultaneously drafting, passing & more importantly funding programs & agencies that lawfully delegates this authority?

why isn't that the reaction from the pro-AZ law crowd? Could it be that deep down they know it isn't constitutional?

Or it could be that the taxpayer is going to get stuck with the bill after years of court cases

This is a ridiculous law suit and they know it

First it was racist: Nobody could prove it

Second it encouraged racial profiling: Nobody could prove that

It took them a month to finally file a lawsuit. Over a month of reading over a 15 page bill with over 20 lawyers scrutinizing it and the only thing they could come up with is the supremacy clause

They know this lawsuit won't work but they are hoping this is enough smoke till after the elections

Mariyam... We are in agreement! I was being a bit sarcastic I thin 287 will play a role in upholding the Az law!

redsfan

First, All of you links are opinion pieces from www.Imigrationforum.org. This is and has always been an Ultra-Liberal facing outfit that believes in open US Borders for All; Hardly an unbiased or, in most cases, no even an accurate interpretation of what the law says. It is nothing more than a circular logic representation of ultra-liberal beliefs on open borders that is no more factual than the syllogism of "Why Fire Engines are Red."

Why not, instead, go to the Cornell Law site for your information? You can google it at the following, it will have everything that you ever wanted to know and were afraid to ask:

TITLE 8, CHAPTER 12, SUBCHAPTER II, Part III, § 1101-1537

The penalties for violating these rules can be found in TITLE 18 of the US Code and many of them are at very least a Class D Felony.

almost half of the undocumented immigrants present in the U.S. have overstayed visas.

And just how do you plan to verify this exactly? By Again going out to www.immigrationform.org? We don't even know how may Illegal Aliens (Notice I didn't say Illegal or Undocumented Immigrants, I'll address that later.) The ESTIMATES are between 12 Million to 30 Million for starters, depending on who you ask. Next, how do almost half of them "Overstay their Visas," as you say? Are there a thousand INS booths all along the Interstate highways in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California to issue visas as they come across the border? I Think not.

Let me explain a little to you about Visas, Legal Immigration, and Illegal Aliens. In order to be an Immigrant, you must go through a legal process to become one; Just swimming the border, coming in via a container ship, overstaying your vacation Visa, or being brought in by parents illegally as a child and staying doesn't cut it. You MUST have either an Entry Visa (either to apply for entry or enter for vacation), a Work and / or residence Visa, Landed Immigrant Status (Green Card), or Diplomatic / Refugee status. If you don't have one of those items, your status in a county is that of Alien in that country. This isn't just ours, it is ANY Country. I trust that I'm not going too fast here; am I?

If you enter the country illegally, in any way, violate the terms of any visa that you have, or violate any law in that country (including minor things like Traffic Offences, A bounced Check, or overstaying your Visa) your visa becomes void and your Status charges to Illegal Alien. Per the terms of you visa, you may now be removed from the country, by force if necessary. Just ask Anna (Cherapova) Chapman.

We lived in France in the 80's and I was working as an ex-pat for an American company. My wife and children all had visas that allowed them to reside in France, attend school, and visit other countries (This was Pre EU). I had visas that allowed me to reside in France and work several countries. We also lived in England and Canada in the 90's. In each of these countries the rules were the pretty much same; "If you violate even one restriction of your visa, it is void and you are subject to deportation without notice." I was always careful to be sure that my "papers" were in order, up to date, and I didn't even place a toe Near the line much less over it.

Our laws are nowhere near as Draconian as those in other countries. Ours are FAR more lenient than you will find in Germany, France, Spain, Brazil, Argentina, or even Canada . Have you ever been to any of these countries? Go to Mexico, Brazil, France, Argentina, or Germany, and enter them illegally, let your visa expire, or violate any of the rules and see how much fun you will have. None of these countries have EVER heard of Miranda Rights; you'll just love the experience!

Ben-1268009

I gladly await the decision of the courts. but, you might want to keep this little tidbit in mind; If the Feds go after Arizona for their law but fail to go after the sanctuary cities for usurping the federal authority, then the Feds may find themselves in violation of one of our most sacred ideas: Equal Treatment for All Under the law. To sue for one infraction and let another go unchallenged would probably give Arizona plenty of appeal room all the way to the SCOTUS should the Obama Administration find a sympathetic (whiny liberal) Federal Judge. That could take a lot longer than I think that the Administration and you bunch of whiny liberals have left in power. November 2nd is coming fast, only about 115 Days left!

Enjoy.

My link in #1.17 is from a Congressional Research Service Report produced during the Bush administration under a Republican Congress. I fail to see how it is a ultra-liberal anything. And once again, in response to the false comments that "overstaying your visa is a criminal act" or that "anyone in this country illegally is a felon", that report states correctly...

Being illegally present in the U.S. has always been a civil, not criminal, violation of the INA, and subsequent deportation and associated administrative processes are civil
proceedings.

And as far as the so-called "sanctuary cities", the report I linked in #1.10 is thoroughly sourced with footnotes and facts...not opinion or fear-mongering.

And as for the number illegal immigrants who overstay their visas...several sources agree...

The Pew Hispanic Center, a research group that studies issues, attitudes and trends among the Hispanic population, estimated in 2006 that almost half of the 10.8 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. came here with visas and stayed after they expired.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which has cited the Pew report, estimated that as of 2000 those who overstayed visas accounted for one-third of all illegal immigrants. A 2003 U.S. Government Accountability Office report said that estimate was almost certainly too low....

Since 2007, more than 300,000 individuals each year have remained after their visas expire, a top official with Immigration and Customs Enforcement told members of Congress at a March hearing on the issue.

Undocumented Workers Overstay Visas

Being illegally present in the U.S. has always been a civil, not criminal, violation of the INA, and subsequent deportation and associated administrative processes are civil
proceedings.

Does that mean we can't shoot 'em?

Redsfan'

OK, as to the link in 1.17. The link points to http://immigration.procon.org. Not the US Senate or any other government entity (otherwise it would be a .gov suffix).

Next, on their front page, they validate my statement about Illegal Alien vs Undocumented or Illegal Immigrant. It states in Paragraph 2 on their front page:

[Note: The term "alien" refers to all non-U.S. nationals and to all non-U.S. citizens. The term "immigrant" refers to an alien with lawful permanent resident status who has been granted the right by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service to reside permanently and to work without restrictions in the United States. The term "illegal alien" is used for aliens who have entered the United States without authorization and who are deportable if apprehended, or who entered the United States legally but who have fallen "out of status" and are also deportable.]

Next, on the first page of your cited report is states:

Summary

An estimated 11 million unauthorized aliens reside in the United States, and this population is estimated to increase by 500,000 annually. Each year, approximately 1 million aliens are apprehended trying to enter the United States illegally. Although most of these aliens enter the United States for economic opportunities and family reunification, or to avoid civil strife and political unrest, some are criminals, and some may be terrorists. All are violating the United States’ immigration laws.

Have you ever lived and worked in another country? If you have, they you already know, or should have read in the "fine print" of your Visa that ANY violation of the visa rules, host country's laws and regulations, or visa restrictions (including length of stay restrictions) , will immediately void your visa and change your status ti Illegal within that country. Further, any official of the host country's government can, at any time require you to present your documents whenever they choose. They do not have to have Reasonable Doubt or Probable Cause to make the request. They are not "required" to throw you out, but the have the right and CAN throw you out for practically anything.

The part that you refuse to acknowledge is that they are STILL BREAKING OUR LAWS. If you have a visa, it is now void. If you don't you have broken them just coming here. In any other G-20 Country, you would be tossed out on your ear. Civil or Criminal law makes no difference. Break either one in any other country and you are history if they so desire. See Ya!

And as for the number illegal immigrants who overstay their visas

In your previous post you stated that:

almost half of the undocumented immigrants present in the U.S. have overstayed visas.

First, the 11 million Illegal Aliens was a 2006 ESTIMATE, no one knows exactly and depending how one wants to massage the numbers, it could be more than twice that number. As they say, "Statistics don't lie, but Statisticians Do!"

Next, even using the CRS Report's estimate of only 500,000 annually, as a benchmark which I believe is very low having lived in Texas, That would move us up to 12 million by this year using their numbers or as many as 30 million (2.5 times by other estimates). 500,000 soldiers didn't enter Europe on D-Day and that was called an Invasion, Why would you no call 500,000 Illegal Aliens entering the country an invasion?

redsfan--

And as far as the so-called "sanctuary cities", the report I linked in #1.10 is thoroughly sourced with footnotes and facts...not opinion or fear-mongering.

I debunked that easily. Try again.

LOL - you debunked nothing! And if a Congressional Research Service Report from the Bush/Cheney/Republican Congress years is not enough "proof" for right-wingers that not all so-called "illegal immigrants" are felons or criminals, then I guess there's no point in discussing this particular topic anymore.

If a person is in this country illegally then they are a criminal by definition redsfan

Don't believe me?

Criminal

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/criminal

1. of the nature of or involving crime.

2. guilty of crime.

Azerith

Maybe you can locate the burial sites of your ancestors and ask them "What part of Illegal didn't you get?'

BTW...."Sanctuary cities" exist only in the minds of racists. Like the mythical anchor baby and the welfare queen of Reagan's addled mind.

Sanctuary cities DO exist, and proudly proclaim themselves thus. They DO violate federal law. The Arizona law, on the other hand, simply ARE the federal laws, with one exception. The federal law does NOT prohibit profiling, but the Arizona law does. It only allows the demand for proof of citizenship until the person has been stopped for a reasonable police procedure (speeding, dwi, whatever.

If all undocumented immigrants were considered to be criminals BY LAW, then why would Federal Immigration Law have distinct categories for criminal violations and civil violations of the law? Because all undocumented immigrants are NOT considered criminals by American law. As yet another Congressional Research Service Report prepared under the Bush/Cheney/Republican Congress administration states...

Congress defined our nation’s immigration laws in the Immigration and
Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. §§1101 et seq.), which contains both criminal and
civil enforcement measures. Historically, the authority for state and local law
enforcement officials to enforce immigration law has been construed to be limited
to the criminal provisions of the INA; by contrast, the enforcement of the civil
provisions, which includes apprehension and removal of deportable aliens, has strictly been viewed as a federal responsibility, with states playing an incidental supporting role.

Maybe you can locate the burial sites of your ancestors and ask them "What part of Illegal didn't you get?'

Which ones?

The Hispanic side? African side? or the Cherokee side?

The ones that would be illegal under the different set of rules that have been set for Mexican immigrants.

Neal Osborn: "It only allows the demand for proof of citizenship until the person has been stopped for a reasonable police procedure (speeding, dwi, whatever."

See,, it's the "whatever" part that's racial profiling. Define "Reasonable suspicion". Describe what an illegal immigrant looks like.

redsfan--

Oh for @!$%#'s sake. *rubbing my temples*

LOL - you debunked nothing!

Denial really doesn't look good on you since I provided how many links and even a direct police report for you.

Good grief, denial is a terrible disease.

-------------------------------------------------

AZPADDY--

Like the mythical anchor baby and the welfare queen of Reagan's addled mind.

The mythical anchor baby? What does it have a horn, or wings? Does it grant wishes.

Right anchor babies don't exist.

Now I really have heard it all tonight. LOL

Reagan is dead by the way, in case you forgot.

You do realize that lawyers from both political sides have found the AZ law to not be racist right? You don't understand laws do you.

The ones that would be illegal under the different set of rules that have been set for Mexican immigrants.

Show me the rules or law that ONLY applies specifically to Mexican immigrants

Neal Osborn: "It only allows the demand for proof of citizenship until the person has been stopped for a reasonable police procedure (speeding, dwi, whatever."

See,, it's the "whatever" part that's racial profiling.

That makes no sense

You have to be stopped for violating the law as states in SB 1070 11-1051 Section B

Define "Reasonable suspicion".

Reasonable suspicion is the entire circumstances that lead up to the suspicion

It is impossible to make rules governing what does constitute reasonable suspicion for every circumstance

It is much easier to make rules on what DOES NOT constitute reasonable suspicion in every circumstance i.e. race, color, national origin as stated in 11-1051 Section B

Describe what an illegal immigrant looks like.

Irrelevant until you can describe what a murderer or a bank robber looks like

Redsfan and AZPaddy,

Guys, you don't seem to understand the concept of breaking the law. Is that really so hard? hell, I learned about that when I was 5 years old and that was a LONG time ago.

If you don't like a law, have balls enough to work to get it changed, repealed, or another added. But you seem to want to Ignore all laws that you don't like. Maybe I should try that, like not paying my power or water bill because I don't like it. How about my Income Tax or Property Tax? I don't like them either. Wait ... if I do that I will go to jail and no one will cry about ME being repressed by those horrible laws that are so unfair!

Here is a suggestion; just sit back, take you Thorazine, and go back to sleep. Nurse Ratched will be in to check on you later. Yes, I know Thorazine has bad side effects, but as it is said in Latin:

"extremis malis extrema remedia" - "extreme remedies for extreme ills!"

KShark, Azerith, chris, et. al.,

Of course the language used in crafting SB 1070 racist legislation cannot legally include the word 'Mexican", so the crafters ( Kris Kobach of F.A.I.R. http://theczech.wordpress.com/2010/04/28/kris-kobach-is-that-you/ , http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/profiling-arizona-legislator-russell ) were required to work around the inconvenience of civil rights laws. It's still unconstitutional.

I seriously doubt any thinking person buys into the idea that SB 1070 isn't a race based intiative promoted by F.A.I.R. and sheperded into law by the racist state Senator Russell Pearce.

To side with this ugly legislation is to condone racial politics at its pre-civil rights era worst. Sherrif Eugene "Bull" Connor of 1963 Birmingham, Alabama would be slapping you on the back and shaking your hand. You must be SO proud.

AZPaddy,

I seriously doubt any thinking person buys into the idea that SB 1070 isn't a race based intiative promoted by F.A.I.R. and sheperded into law by the racist state Senator Russell Pearce.

I seriously doubt that anyone with an IQ greater than that of Baldric's Turnip would have to resort to playing the "Race Card" when he / she could not defend themselves in no other way. It ranks right up there with Fascism, Nazism, Stalin-ism, that you shout when you run out of arguments.

Is it racist when a black cop stops a non black person when they are driving 65 in a 35 zone? It must be since you declare the converse to be unequivocally true at the top of your lungs (White cop stops a non white speeder).

Like I said earlier, take your Thorazine. Nurse Ratched will be in shortly to prep you for your lobotomy. You really are beyond help.

Well well well. When someone points out the blatant racism in the AZ. SB 1070, you claim it's because they're less intelligent than"Baldric's turnip", an overwrought attempt at wit. Are you a college sophomore?

The proof of SB 1070 author's background in racist politics is provided, yet you make the claim that pointing that out is playing the "race card".

OK. You're damned right I'm playing the race card because the intent of the bill has nothing to do with immigration reform, nothing to do with border security, and everything to do with race based law enforcement. If you can't understand the Dog-Whistle politics involved with the language in the bill, then your reading comprehension is suspect, or you're willing to support the racist intent inherent in the legislation. Either way.....you're on the losing side of the civil rights battle that was settled over 45 years ago.

What part of "unconstitutional" do you not understand??

KShark #1.36

"Reagan is dead by the way, in case you forgot."

How could anyone, especially a liberal American patriot, forget that Ronald Wilson Reagan is dead?

To paraphrase the late great Betty Davis: "One shouldn't say bad things about the dead. Only good. Ronald Reagan is dead. Good!"

Of course the language used in crafting SB 1070 racist legislation cannot legally include the word 'Mexican", so the crafters ( Kris Kobach of F.A.I.R. http://theczech.wordpress.com/2010/04/28/kris-kobach-is-that-you/ , http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/profiling-arizona-legislator-russell ) were required to work around the inconvenience of civil rights laws. It's still unconstitutional

So by your own admission 2 facts show up

1) the law includes NO RACIAL language

2) Somehow this fact that NO RACIAL language is present in the bill somehow makes it racist

Considering the feds never named anything of the sort in their lawsuit (and they had over 20 experienced lawyers that were examining this law for over a month) shows that there is nothing in the law that can even be close to misconstrued as racist language

So all this big fuss your putting up over racist language is a lie further perpetrated because of your own prejudice against this bill

Azerith

You're attempting to run interference for the crafters of the bill. The overall intent of SB 1070 is racist in its entirety. If the bill does not address border security - which it does not, and does not address immigration reform - which it does not, then what exactly does it address? The price of Tea in China??

Clearly, it is written to give law enforcement license to investigate suspected illegal immigrants. How does anyone arrive at "Reasonable suspicion"? By the way a suspect appears? By the accent they speak with? The clothes they wear? In other words, it leaves all brown skinned people open to being detained and made to provide "Your papers" based solely on the whims of any one officer. Arguing that no specific language exists in this bill spelling out racism is akin to arguing the declaration of independence had nothing to do with the British because the British aren't mentioned.

Funny how history seems to be repeating: Conservatives clamoring for a wall separating two nations, and jonesing for officers to have license to demand "Your papers please!!" All you guys need to complete the persona are the black uniforms.

http://www.azfamily.com/news/91769419.html

AZPADDY--

Honestly right now the only racist I do see here is you.

Do you even realize Eric Holder, yeah the AG of the US said the f-ing law is not racist.

Attorney General Eric Holder told me the controversial new Arizona immigration law is not racist, but he remains concerned the law could lead to racial profiling. In my "This Week" interview, Holder said, "I don't think it's racist in its motivation. But I think the concern I have is how it will be perceived and how it perhaps could be enacted, how it could be carried out. I think we could potentially get on a slippery slope where people will be picked on because of how they look as opposed to what they have done, and that is I think something that we have to try to avoid at all costs."

Holder: AZ Immigration Law Not Racist

So I guess Eric Holder is a racist now for saying the law is not racist.

Your rhetoric is banal. You are parroting the same stupid crap that has been found to be untrue. But hey nice to see that you support illegals, that makes you an accessory, which is a crime.

So you are actually committing a Federal crime yourself

United States

The U.S. criminal code makes aiding and abetting a federal crime itself a crime [1]:

(a) Whoever aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures the commission of an offense, is punishable as a principal.
(b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense, is punishable as a principal.

A person may be convicted of aiding and abetting any act made criminal under the code. The elements of aiding and abetting are, generally:

(1) guilty knowledge on the part of the accused ( the mens rea);
(2) the commission of an offense by someone; and
(3) the defendant assisted or participated in the commission of the offense (the actus reus).

Take your BS elsewhere I am sure a farm needs to be fertilized.

By the way with your 1.42 I would exclude the patriot part, barely include American, and for you simply call yourself a liberal. You're the one that brought up Reagan, not me.

A classic sign of defeat in any debate is when one can't argue the issues and instead attacks the person:

From Chris:"Ignorance can be fixed, but Stupid is FOREVER!"

From KShark: "Take your BS elsewhere I am sure a farm needs to be fertilized."

It's just too bad you're so bitter in defeat.

AZPADDY--

I'm bitter in defeat? What? And how did you even come close to defeating me? I even posted a direct quote from Eric Holder the ATTORNEY GENERAL saying the law was not racist. Go write a note to Holder and tell him the law is racist.

You are still arguing against me.

Hell it is too bad you are bitter in DEEP denial. I don't know how ya live in that much denial. LOL.

AZPADDY, even if the bill's author Russel Pearce is in fact a racist douchebag, the law itself ended up being very un-racist. Maybe Pearce is pissed about that, but f-k him if he is.

At the end of the day, Arizona is enforcing the federal immigration law and putting a lot of restraints on the cops in how they enforce the law. That is a good thing...unless of course you are pro-illegal-immigration, then you probably see it as a bad thing.

The next step in this drama, besides the minor nuisance of a multi-million dollar federal lawsuit that the Feds know they can't possibly win, is to get our state, county & local cops' computers hooked up to the ICE database, so they can get rid of the "reasonable suspicion" nonsense and just check the legal residency of EVERY person they stop, no matter what.

Black, white, brown, yellow, Indian or whatever each of us is or whatever mixture of some of the above, let's make is really simple -- a cop stops you, he runs your ID, and instead of just getting your arrest record, outstanding warrants and parking tickets and whatever info he already gets, now he also gets your citizenship or immigration status.

White boy from Canada who overstayed your visa, you're busted. Mexican college student who graduated from ASU two years ago and never went home, you're busted. And so on...

AZPaddy,

If you could do anything beside shout "Racist" or "unconstitutional", we might be able to have a dialogue. But, alas, that is all you seem to be able to do. I asked you a simple question and repeat it here:

And just WHO ruled it unconstitutional? The Courts, some all powerful Deity (Allah, Buddha, God, Shiva, Yahweh), or perhaps The Great Pumpkin; Eh, Linus? Or was it just YOU that deemed it unconstitutional (like Pelosi "Deems" things done)?

Since it is evident from your posts many post on Newsvine in quite a number of threads, that you are not a legal scholar. I am simply asking who has declared this unconstitutional. What Court? Can you supply me with dockets, case names or rulings? It doesn't count if its is just an opinion put forth by Franco de la Dumbass, JD (an attorney in the law firm of Dewey, Cheatem and Howe), in some ultra-liberal blog that has not as much credibility as the "Tea Party Gazette." Sorry kid, find a real ruling and we can talk.

I have also asked you before if you have ever lived and worked LEGALLY in another country. Have you? If so I dare say you would have a much better understanding of immigration law and how it is negotiated between nations. You would also understand that we are the ONLY country that doesn't prosecute immigration law violations.

Ours are far less Draconian than ANY other country in the world. Don't believe it? Go to Mexico, Brazil, France, Argentina, or Germany, and enter them illegally, let your visa expire, or violate any of their rules or laws and see how much fun you will have. None of these countries have EVER heard of Miranda Rights; you'll just love the experience! Why don't you ask Mr. Joren van der Sloot how much fun he is having in Peru right now! I bet he's just having a blast!

Just yelling Racist, Nazi, Fascist, or unconstitutional without anything to backup back uou up but your "belief" or court rulings on the matter is nothing more than, as my Great-Grandfather used to call this type of unsubstantiated circular argument;" Just Polishing a Turd." No matter how much you rub it , you'll never change it into a Baby Ruth. But, then again, you're free to get out the buffing cloth and a gallon of Turd polish. Have at it and enjoy yourself!

You're attempting to run interference for the crafters of the bill.

No I'm giving you facts. If you don't like them then that is something you will have to deal with

The overall intent of SB 1070 is racist in its entirety.

Show some proof, something, anything that even remotely suggests that something in this bill is targeted specifically toward a particular group

If the bill does not address border security - which it does not, and does not address immigration reform - which it does not, then what exactly does it address?

The enforcement of federal statutes such as murder, bank robbery, ID theft etc etc

The price of Tea in China??

American law has nothing to do with the price adjustments in China

Clearly, it is written to give law enforcement license to investigate suspected illegal immigrants. How does anyone arrive at "Reasonable suspicion"?

Again it is IMPOSSIBLE to determine reasonable suspicion in EVERY scenario an officer may encounter. It is much more simple to lay down rules that govern what DOES NOT constitute reasonable suspicion

By the way a suspect appears? By the accent they speak with? The clothes they wear?

What do you mean the way they appear?If you mean the color of someones skin then no. If you mean if they look Latino or look like they were from South America then no as both of those examples are clearly ILLEGAL and violate this law

Last time I checked accent weren't proper in reasonable suspicion. Clothes do say somethings but hardly an indicator to being an illegal alien in most situations

In other words, it leaves all brown skinned people open to being detained and made to provide "Your papers" based solely on the whims of any one officer.

Where in the law does it name brown people? Where does it say if your brown with no ID you will be detained? Where does it say an officer can force you to show an ID just because they want to?

You can't answer any of these because you know your statements are all lies

Arguing that no specific language exists in this bill spelling out racism is akin to arguing the declaration of independence had nothing to do with the British because the British aren't mentioned.

These two aren't even closely related so your example falls far short of any factual argument

Funny how history seems to be repeating: Conservatives clamoring for a wall separating two nations, and jonesing for officers to have license to demand "Your papers please!!" All you guys need to complete the persona are the black uniforms.

Where does it say that an officer has a license to demand papers at any time?

Many are asking to build a wall for several reasons that I can put very simple

Why do you have a door on your residence? Why do you have locks on your residence? Why do you have locks on your vehicle? Why do you have a specific key for your vehicle?

All these questions can be answered with one thing and that is security

The same thing goes for the wall. It has to do with security and it doesn't do any good to have a policy in place that says people aren't allowed in illegally if you LEAVE THE DOOR WIDE OPEN

Your word is good enough.

Citizen Kane-473667

You are correct. My appologies to all. I let my frustration get the better of me trying to drag some reason out of him. Again, my apologies and I will attempt to do better. I have a tempetr too and sometimes It can get out of the bottle.

Citizen Kane-473667

I get really hot with people when all they can do is shout racism, and Nazism or Fascism. My family was Multi-Racial long before it was "en vogue." When someone shouts that enough times, I can get my "shorts in a wad".

Nazism and Fascism are also terms that , when when thrown out without understanding hit my hot buttons. I have two uncles that are residents of Colleville-Sur-Mer and another great-uncle that resides at Henri-Chapelle. I have an all too personal understanding of what these terms really mean.

No excuses, I should not let someone get to me like that. Again, my apologies to you and your thread.

Chris

I'm not attempting to push your buttons, but the similarities are there in this SB 1070 legislation and 1930's / 40's Germany, even if it is only two similarities, you're no doubt familiar with the poem that begins: "First they came for the Jews and I said nothing because I was not a Jew..." or words to that effect.

Please take a little time to research the history of F. A.I.R. and John tanton, the racist founder. Kris Kobach is the F.A.I.R. attorney who helped author the language in SB 1070 and Russell Pearce is the AZ. state legislator with well known ties to white supremists and Neo-Nazi groups that is obsessed with introducing one bill after another that targets Mexicans / Mexican immigrants. The following links are informative and revealing.

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/profiling-arizona-legislator-russell

http://immigration.change.org/blog/view/kris_kobach_the_architect_of_arizona_sb_1070

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2010/03/16/answering-our-critics-splc-smear-dissected/

And finally.....please watch this short video and see if you recognize yourself in any of the anti-immigrant characters voicing their fear, hatred and suspicion of those that are targeted. Maybe then you'll recognize the hate behind the legislation, and understand why I and many others are fighting back against that hate.

http://9500liberty.com/

AZPADDY:

obsessed with introducing one bill after another that targets Mexicans / Mexican immigrants.

It's my understanding that in 2008 AZ passed a law to penalize employers of illegals in their state, and now they've passed a law directed at reducing the number of illegals in their state. It's also my understanding that those laws don't specify "Mexicans" or "Mexican immigrants", but are targeted at illegals (regardless of their home country).

Don't dismiss a good idea just because you don't like the source.

Business a usual ???

AZPADDY

You statements just wreak more and more of the lies you are trying to pass off as fact

You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about when it comes this law

That is self evident by how you keep trying to compare it to Nazi Germany

Azerith

"You statements just wreak more and more of the lies you are trying to pass off as fact" What lies??

"You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about when it comes this law" more baseless absolutes??

"That is self evident by how you keep trying to compare it to Nazi Germany" Sorry, but I call em' like I see em', and there are indeed similarities in SB 1070 and what the Nazis practiced.

I'm beginning to lose interest in debating you Azerith. You're falling way behind.

Smyth

Of course the laws introduced by state sen. Russell Pearce do not and cannot specify any one ethnic people or race. If you've read the links in my previous comment regarding F.A.I.R. and Kris Kobach's "work", you'll be aware of his pattern of promoting like legislation across the nation. To say the man's a cancer on the freedom we've fought and died for seems almost unnecessary.

In a different era not to long ago the Kris Kobachs of the world would be denounced as the un-American race bigot that he is. As a third generation Arizonan, I take great offense at outside unelected interests writing the laws the people of Arizona must live with. Kris Kobach was not on the ballot to my recollection, and if Russell Pearce has to rely on a Kris Kobach, Pearce dosn't belong in elective office.

In the end this hateful legislation will be struck down as other similar efforts have in other states. It is a sad commentary on the state of our nation when known racists and known neo-Nazis can openly practice their despicable views, and then enjoy support from the public.

Maybe we are headed for another civil war. If so, I hope it comes soon, so we can get it over with. The outcome should be the same as the last one.

I'm beginning to lose interest in debating you Azerith.

Only because you can't debate facts

You're falling way behind.

I'm sorry I can't hop on the train of lies and misinformation. I'll stay on my straight and narrow path

I'm sure you will. Good luck.

1.60 -- "Maybe we are headed for another civil war. If so, I hope it comes soon, so we can get it over with. The outcome should be the same as the last one."

Interesting prediction. Only a few years prior to the last civil war, the West was liberated from Mexican rule.

"Liberated"? Ha!

Political lines are drawn for political reasons. The Mexican people did not move south of the new border, but of course stayed in the areas they historically inhabited. The very names of the landmarks, towns, cities, streets, and even states reflect the fact that the entire southwest indeed reflects the Mexican culture that has been in place for centuries. That's a very loose description of 'liberation', in my book.

In more recent years, we have new immigrants from the midwest that move here, then complain about Spanish being spoken. What Hutzpah! These latter day immigrants bring a culture of intolerance and boorish behaviour evident in their pushy demands that the Mexican culture be suppressed, or even obliterated.

I argue that we in the southwest are the ones that have been invaded. Invaded by those seeking better living conditions than the squalid crowded cities of their own making east of the Mississippi river.

AZPADDY:

I noticed that you wrote several paragraphs about one of the guys who wrote the AZ law, but very little about the law itself...

Most citizens (of AZ or the US) don't know that guy, but they agree with the law. The law doesn't target any race and specifically prohibits profiling. Continuing to say otherwise is misleading.

Oh yes...it's such a wonderfully written law that many lawmakers, organizations and individuals across the nation have denounced it as bad legislation that needs to be stopped before it becomes law. Despite the popularity of this legislation, the Obama administration has denounced it also. Hardly the actions of a fair weather politician.

I believe the key to exposing the intent behind the law is to make the authors names and works more widely known to the public. F.A.I.R. and Kris Kobach aren't on the Southern Poverty Law Center's list of hate groups for nothing.

Any legislation that has F.A.I.R.'s or Kris Kobach's handprints on it should be considered tainted by bigotry and prejudice and tossed in the gutter where it belongs. That Arizona is the gutter for F.A.I.R's handiwork should enrage any decent citizen of this state.

AZPADDY

1) I still haven't seen any evidence FAIR is a racist organization especially when they have groups attached to them headed by prominent minorities

2) The SPLC is an opinion based group. I've pulled up a couple of their writings that show they're opinion on situations and no actual facts

3) You still haven't proven the LAW is racist or bigot

4) Until you can the only thing you are doing is spreading the same lies

5) There are many more organizations, including the Fraternal Order of Police, who have come out in support of the law

AZPADDY:

Any legislation that has F.A.I.R.'s or Kris Kobach's handprints on it should be considered tainted by bigotry and prejudice

Prejudice:
1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
2. any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.

LOl Still arguing over the non"racism" of the law?

AZPADDY how about ya do us all a favor and go talk to Eric Holder, ya know the black attorney general of the US that doesn't find the AZ law racist. LOL.

Man this is funny to read.

Smyth #1.68

An excellent description of SB 1070. Thanks for posting that.

Personally, I like Ambrose Bierce' definition of prejudice.

"Prejudice: A vagrant opinion without visible means of support."

Russell Pearce and Jan Brewer should have that word tattooed on their foreheads.

Actually AZPADDY, I was pointing out the prejudice in your own statement...Your bias seems to have blinded you as it relates to the AZ law...

Smyth, and other deniers of the racist intent behind SB 1070

Here is an opinion from a recognized legal expert regarding SB 1070 and the false premise that it only reflects current federal law, and has nothing to do with racial profiling.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/07/15/20100715Montini0715.html

Everyone's got an opinion.

And this guy has an opinion that, even the AG himself, hasn't named in their legal challenge against Arizona

Everyone has an opinion and you can tell this guys is slanted

Oh yeah, he's slanted allright. Slanted to TDC ( Top Dead Center ).

From the article: "There is a desire among all of us to have simple solutions to complicated problems,"

I guess statements of fact really are a left leaning liberal trait.

I was hoping you would read the article through to the end, but apparently that's asking too much. Knee jerk reactions are SO much easier than thinking.

You assume quite a bit Azpaddy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Brignoni-Ponce

Funny thing about the case this guy quoted only applies to the border and the border patrol

allow a roving patrol of the United States Border Patrol to stop a vehicle near the United States–Mexico border and question its occupants about their citizenship and immigration status

Wonder why he left that important detail out? Because last time I looked the Border Patrol was Federal not state

Could it be that his leaning isn't toward the truth that you like to portray?

I don't know if truth is a liberal trait but it definitely isn't yours

Oh in case you want to question what exactly is in the Az constitution

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/Constitution.asp

Find me the act that allows racial profiling

Azerith

I have to think you didn't read the link I provided regarding the law professors opinion.

"In an analysis that Chin did for The Arizona Republic back when the law was passed, and then again in an essay he co-wrote for the Washington Post with University of California-Davis professor Kevin Johnson, Chin points to the language in SB 1070 that OKs racial profiling.

It reads: "A law-enforcement official or agency of this state may not consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution."

If the sentence had ended after the word "subsection" racial profiling would be banned." End quote.

Mmmmkay?

Yes I know

Maybe you should take your own advice and READ THE REST

"He points to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling from 1975 known as United States v. Brignoni-Ponce. In it, justices decided that "Mexican appearance" was a "relevant factor" during immigration stops"

This is where my above comment came into play

His whole argument was based on this court case that is applicable to FEDERAL AUTHORITIES and not state