Originally Posted by TheSenator (Post 17370051)

Rush Limbaugh already spewing that the judge is a Clinton appointee.

Originally Posted by kristin (Post 17369654)

I wish Joe Arpaio was part of ICE.

Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 17370064)

that's a good point, what do i know about american rights

i guess i could quote your founding fathers, but why laugh

i guess i could quote the WW2 propaganda, but why cry

so no, you're right, i have no idea what rights you guys do or don't have

i'll just say i am pointing out the blatant racism that is going on

Originally Posted by Quentin (Post 17369998)

For those of you who are pissed off at the judge, keep in mind that this is just a preliminary ruling, and it was to be expected.

In a challenge to a statute like this, the party bringing the lawsuit always asks for a TRO against enforcement of the law pending adjudication. The court then looks at the statute and the challenge to it, and rules based on whether the plaintiff has a reasonable chance of prevailing at trial. The standard is not all that high, and the court tends to error to the side of caution, particularly when the statute in question is highly controversial, and opposed at the executive level of government.

ANY time the case involves potential for federal preemption of state law, the court is pretty likely to put a TRO against enforcement in place. This is because the feds, historically, have come out on top of such arguments a healthy percentage of the time.

In short, this is a procedural ruling, NOT necessarily an indication of what the court will eventually decide.

It's just judicial business as usual folks, nothing more. In the end, this same court/judge may well rule for Arizona, entirely. This is also Step 1 of MANY to come. Settle in for a long ride... this case is not going to resolve quickly; it is going to be appealed by the losing side (whichever side that turns out to be) every step of the way.

Originally Posted by sperbonzo (Post 17370631)

Outstanding post.... I'm not sure why it was seemingly ignored on this thread, unless it's because it completely negated the immediacy of this entire issue and rendered it to the "wait and see" column.

.:winkwink::thumbsup

.

Originally Posted by brassmonkey (Post 17370655)

already knew that. i went to the court house. ill be there tomorrow watching people act crazy and get arrested. damn i might even film it. :)

Originally Posted by sperbonzo (Post 17370631)

Outstanding post.... I'm not sure why it was seemingly ignored on this thread, unless it's because it completely negated the immediacy of this entire issue and rendered it to the "wait and see" column.

.:winkwink::thumbsup

.

Originally Posted by Nikki_Licks (Post 17370568)

I am sure what you have posted here are stats from "LEGAL" Mexican American?s or Chicanos who own businesses that pay taxes and not "ILLEGAL" Mexican's/Chicanos who mooch and drain the system in each and every state they squat in, along with not paying taxes.

I believe he is referring to ILLEGAL'S that do not pay into the system.

Originally Posted by SpongeBub (Post 17370596)

Canada ... leading the world in being just north of America.

Originally Posted by Quentin (Post 17370423)

You certainly don't have to be a liberal to believe that it is a good thing that we have in this country a process for subjecting statutes to judicial scrutiny. (And if you work in the porn industry, you sure as shit depend on that process for your continued professional survival.)

Let's suppose that someday in the not too distant future, an anti-gun political action group in some state/municipality or another manages to muster enough signatures to get a measure on the ballot to simply outlaw guns in that state/municipality, and let's say that measure then passes by a popular vote.

Let's further suppose that a federal court then rules that state/municipality's new gun law unconstitutional (which it would be, IMO).

Would you complain that the court in the above hypothetical had violated the will of the people, or would you applaud the court for upholding the Constitution? I suspect you would be glad the court had the authority to review the law, and glad that it overturned it, as I would be.

Judicial review of legislative and/or voter action is a good thing, whether or not you or I like any given decision the courts make.

Do judges sometimes (or even often) rule in ways that are contrary to the intent of the Constitution and/or case law/precedent? Of course! Judges are human, and as such they are subject to biases that can cloud their judgment. This is a big part of the reason why our system has multiple checks and multiple layers of overriding authority built in.

At the end of the day, all we can do is set the system up to strongly discourage judicial bias, and have review of lower courts by higher courts in order to increase the likelihood that we catch and correct instances in which political subjectivity has tainted a given court's/judge's decision.

It ain't perfect.... but if you stack our court system up against that of other countries, I think you'll agree our system comes out of that comparison looking relatively good, really. :2 cents:

Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 17370709)

well, you mean income taxes, as anyone in your country still would pay sales tax

and the reason i posted this was because someone stated that most of the Hispanic population is on welfare

Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 17370064)

that's a good point, what do i know about american rights

i guess i could quote your founding fathers, but why laugh

i guess i could quote the WW2 propaganda, but why cry

so no, you're right, i have no idea what rights you guys do or don't have

i'll just say i am pointing out the blatant racism that is going on

Originally Posted by charlie g (Post 17370722)

Maybe if things keep going the way they are, Americans will cross the border to the North to have their babies, get free medical care, get jobs and pay no taxes, and over burden the educational system. Then you get to pay more money to support them and to protect their rights.

Originally Posted by charlie g (Post 17370722)

I think what your missing here is the part "illegal". The constitution protects "American citizens" rights, not Canadians, Mexicans, or any other nationality. This has little to do with skin color, as the "legal" Hispanic immigrants are more pissed than american citizens over illegal immigration. But play the race card because it's popular and makes you seem intellectual.

Originally Posted by charlie g (Post 17370722)

Maybe if things keep going the way they are, Americans will cross the border to the North to have their babies, get free medical care, get jobs and pay no taxes, and over burden the educational system. Then you get to pay more money to support them and to protect their rights.

I think what your missing here is the part "illegal". The constitution protects "American citizens" rights, not Canadians, Mexicans, or any other nationality. This has little to do with skin color, as the "legal" Hispanic immigrants are more pissed than american citizens over illegal immigration. But play the race card because it's popular and makes you seem intellectual.

Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 17370734)

alright, explain to me clearly how your police officers are going to be able to distinguish between mexican hispanics and amercian hispanics

Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 17370480)

Businesses

1.6 million
The number of Hispanic-owned businesses in 2002.

* Nearly 43% of Hispanic-owned firms operated in construction; administrative and support, and waste management and remediation services; and other services, such as personal services, and repair and maintenance. Retail and wholesale trade accounted for nearly 36% of Hispanic-owned business revenue.
*
Counties with the highest number of Hispanic-owned firms were Los Angeles County (188,422); Miami-Dade County (163,187); and Harris County, Texas (61,934).

Triple
The rate of growth of Hispanic-owned businesses between 1997 and 2002 (31%) compared with the national average (10%) for all businesses.

$222 billion
Revenue generated by Hispanic-owned businesses in 2002, up 19% from 1997.

44.6%
. . of all Hispanic-owned firms were owned by Mexicans, Mexican-Americans and Chicanos.

29,168
Number of Hispanic-owned firms with receipts of $1 million or more.

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 17370754)

Drivers license, Visa, ID, fingerprint going thru a database, you pick

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 17370716)

Very well said, and I believe in the constitution

Obama restored a requirement that the federal government spend only what it can afford ? a day after authorizing $1.9 trillion more federal debt.

Then when the GOP asked where they are getting the money for extending the unemployment benefits, they were branded the "Party of NO"

At the same time Arizona passes a law by a wide margin to just ask what country are you a citizen of and without even reading the bill, the American voter is ignored by filing a lawsuit against the bill. To me it's as simple as the residents of Arizona want to protect themselves and the Obamanation is telling them they can't do that. Where in the constitution does it say illegal aliens have the right to throw rocks at cops? where does it say that we will provide healthcare for free to anyone that can climb a fence?

And I'm asked why I hate Obama so damn much?

I think it's the job of the president to make sure that the citizens of the US are protected from crime from another country, that's why he sent more troops to Afghanistan isn't it?

Originally Posted by charlie g (Post 17370756)

Wow, what is wrong with you? This is about illegal immigration... not hispanics. Please understand, this law is about stemming the tsunami of illegals wreaking havoc over the wester/southwestern part of the country (and elsewhere too).

Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 17370734)

like during the vietnam war? or more like the underground railroad? i'm confused to which instance you were referring




alright, explain to me clearly how your police officers are going to be able to distinguish between mexican hispanics and amercian hispanics

Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 17370757)

ah, i'm not sure i understand you.. cause that would sound like the distinction has been made

unless you guys have signed affidavits from all your legal mexican friends saying they don't mind proving their citizenship whenever the police see fit

Originally Posted by kristin (Post 17369654)

"including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws. The judge also put on hold a part of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places."

You've got to be kidding me ... the undocumented workers is put on hold?

I wish Joe Arpaio was part of ICE.

Originally Posted by charlie g (Post 17370773)

LOL, fucking hypocrite. Burns you up our hippies crossed in the 60's and 70's.


They will distinguish the same way they do everyone else. I MUST carry my driver's license when driving. And I have never gotten pissed when a cop ha asked to see my ID (which has happened many times throughout my life).

Originally Posted by charlie g (Post 17370756)

Wow, what is wrong with you? This is about illegal immigration... not hispanics. Please understand, this law is about stemming the tsunami of illegals wreaking havoc over the wester/southwestern part of the country (and elsewhere too).

Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 17370765)

you must have missed the message i was responding to

for your quick review:

'Weird, considering the majority of that "population" DOESNT pay taxes..'

you will realize this has nothing to do with you and you should pay attention to the question i just asked

Originally Posted by TheDoc (Post 17370774)

They make them prove they have an ID, and not a single one I have talked to has a problem with that, and not all are citizens but they are here legally.

When I was in Canada, working legally. I was pulled over, and was asked if I had a passport or visa, after I gave them my ID. As well Immigration visited our office, make sure my papers were up to date.

If my papers weren't correct, they would have criminally charged the owners.

You do realize your laws are much like AZ's right?

Originally Posted by bdjerk (Post 17370776)

you do huh? you are such a yippy lap dog sometimes. when was the last time you looked around and saw all the undocumented workers filling positions in society that american's are too fucking lazy to do. you should get more educated before you open your trap.

Originally Posted by charlie g (Post 17370782)

no, I got what you were insinuating, that all hispanics are here illegally, which i dead wrong. The plain fact i that many illegals work for cash money, and do not pay taxes.

Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 17370786)

funny, when i was in AZ they could have cared less for my passport

Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 17370786)

funny, when i was in AZ they could have cared less for my passport

Originally Posted by TheDoc (Post 17370797)

That's logical... the law isn't going yet. But that still doesn't change the fact that they do in Canada. Something your against, which your Country does.

Originally Posted by Nikki_Licks (Post 17370804)

Why would they care about your passport? Passports are checked when you leave the country or enter it. And I am sure you had to show some ID to get your tickets or board the plane.

If you get pulled over here, you better have some sort of ID if you are driving or your going to tent city

Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 17370809)

wouldn't that happen anyway?

Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 17370808)

actually i don't have much problem checking for citizenship of a country.. i initially said months ago, that all that needed to happen was a sensitivity school needed to be set up for Canadians, and you guys were in the clear

however, since this is more about mexicans than immigration

here we are

Originally Posted by Nikki_Licks (Post 17370816)

You make no sense. Why wouldn't what happen anyway?

Originally Posted by TheDoc (Post 17370817)

It's not about Mexicans, it's about Illegals which more happen to be Mexicans here. I'm sure all those Mexican-Americans that helped create the law are.. racist, I mean.. that's logical. And the majority of the state being Mexican-American and the majority of the State supporting it, crazy I know... all that self racism.

And the Police here are going through training... no worries.

Your Immigration laws are more about Asians, for damn sure in BC... what's the issue with ours?

Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 17370834)

again, the problem here is racial discrimination

no one can offer up a solution on how a police officer distinguishes between an American Hispanic and an Illegal Hispanic.

Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 17370823)

well driving without a license would result in:

having your car towed

going to jail

going home then to the police station with said license to avoid ticket

Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 17370786)

funny, when i was in AZ they could have cared less for my passport

Originally Posted by Nikki_Licks (Post 17370846)

Then what was your point in making this comment



You act as if you were pulled over or did something wrong and they did not care about your ID/passport which also makes no sense......

Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 17370757)

ah, i'm not sure i understand you.. cause that would sound like the distinction has been made

unless you guys have signed affidavits from all your legal mexican friends saying they don't mind proving their citizenship whenever the police see fit

Originally Posted by TheDoc (Post 17370759)

So you hate every President... Not just Obama, that's how you should say it. :2 cents:

Originally Posted by TheDoc (Post 17370845)

Oh I know, I know... they do it exactly like they do it now! The police do bust illegals now, they just call ICE to take them away rather than booking them. It's not like the police officer didn't know the person was illegal, or they wouldn't have called ICE.

Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 17370855)

a system of checks and balances..

Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 17370858)

anyways, i guess i obviously will never get it

and either will the US Federal government for that matter

best of luck!

Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 17370852)

they took my bc driver license..

Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 17370858)

and either will the US Federal government for that matter

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 17370716)

Very well said, and I believe in the constitution

Obama restored a requirement that the federal government spend only what it can afford ? a day after authorizing $1.9 trillion more federal debt.

Then when the GOP asked where they are getting the money for extending the unemployment benefits, they were branded the "Party of NO"

At the same time Arizona passes a law by a wide margin to just ask what country are you a citizen of and without even reading the bill, the American voter is ignored by filing a lawsuit against the bill. To me it's as simple as the residents of Arizona want to protect themselves and the Obamanation is telling them they can't do that. Where in the constitution does it say illegal aliens have the right to throw rocks at cops? where does it say that we will provide healthcare for free to anyone that can climb a fence?

And I'm asked why I hate Obama so damn much?

I think it's the job of the president to make sure that the citizens of the US are protected from crime from another country, that's why he sent more troops to Afghanistan isn't it?

Originally Posted by theking (Post 17370906)

The constitution in Article I, Section 8 in creating the authority of the Congress, ?To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.? Thus from a Constitutional stand point it is the responsibility of Congress to establish all laws and rules of naturalization or immigration...not the states.

Ultimately it will be the Supreme Court that decides...if states have the power to pass laws that involve immigration...be it legal or illegal immigration.

As a believer in the constitution you should be pleased that our courts have a review process and that the Supreme Court decides what is constitutional and what isn't.

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 17370927)

that being said, they have set the rules, they are called illegal for a reason, they violate federal rule and law by not being here legally, the Arizona law only reinforces it.
It's also the sanctuary cities that are violating those rules, Arizona is being hammered because of political reasons.

If ultimately the law is turned down it will serve one thing that the citizens are fed up with politics as usual, which has become a trend