Judge rules on Arizona immigration law
 

Below are excerpts of an article in the Christian Science Monitor

"US District Judge Susan Bolton issued a temporary injunction that halted key parts of SB 1070, the Arizona immigration law, that would have required police to check the immigration status of anyone they suspected of being an illegal resident."

"Also blocked by the judge was a section of the law that made it a state crime for any foreign resident of Arizona to fail to carry federally-issued immigration documents at all times."

"Bolton’s injunction also blocks the portion of the law that made it a state crime for an illegal foreign resident in Arizona to solicit, apply for, or perform work."

"...still in the law are provisions creating a new state crime of human smuggling, stopping a motor vehicle to pick up day laborers, and knowingly employing illegal foreign residents."

She said that? Administration's policies, not federal law? :confused:

By the way, that link is to the second page of the article.

The first page says: Oh really, you mean these zillions of dollars they claim they are spending on the problem, isn't enough to check the status of people before they are released from jail, but somehow the feds can check everyone buying a gun? :eyebrow:

I think the decisions is pretty much what I expected. Its going to get punted upstream anyway.

Kept the obvious parts that were compliant and put "on hold" those that were in question. I like that she didn't rule with an "all-or-nothing" decision.

I think it will go back and forth in the courts until it reaches the Supreme Court. Given the current make up it may go in favor of AZ. This should not diminish the failures of the government to enforce current law and good on AZ for making a go of it. Now if we could just get the rest of the border states to join AZ and enact similar laws. Get them all to the Supreme Court at the same time.

Of course its going to the supreme court. There has never been any doubt.

All which ignores the reasons for these problems. We need to massively increase visas and immigrant quotas. And we need drug laws that are not based in prohibition. Since we cannot do what is responsible, we want to construct walls and conduct warfare to solve symptoms of defective laws.

America needs many educated foreigners. The ridiculous law means the entire year's visas expire before the first week ends. We need something like 1.8 million visas for agricultural workers. We offer only tens of thousands. We make illegal the people we need. Then deny the only reasons for resulting problems.

I guess I haven't read the right articles to tell me what I'm supposed to be outraged about, but isn't the law basically a law which makes it illegal to do something illegal, and says that the police are supposed to enforce the law? And the problem is?

I think some of the Judge's reasoning make me think she is either a little biased toward illegals or just stupid. Why strike down a part of the law requiring a check of immigration status before being released from jail? Her reasoning? That it would require actually require immigration officials to do their job. WTF kind of thought process is that? I am fairly confident that the ruling will be overturned on appeal. Either way, as others have said, it's going to the Supreme Court.

What drives me absolutely bat-shit crazy is that these illegals are actually protesting that the law is discriminatory when they shouldn't be here in the first place.

And I still question the sanity of anyone who does not think that we have a right to enforce our own borders.

I was discussing this last week with a neighbor of mine. One comment he made was simplistic, but said an awful lot.
Paraphrasing ... No matter how you sugarcoat it, an illegal alien is here illegally.

There is no way to start any process of any kind without first controlling the borders and the influx of those coming here unaccounted for.
Amnesty that doesn't penalize those here illegally is a slap in the face to all those who went through the correct process and did the right thing. All the other arguments cannot be addressed without monitoring and controlling those who come here.

Dunno where the numbers come from, but 60% is a damn large number.

Memo outlines backdoor 'amnesty' plan
Immigration staffers cite tools available without reform
I'm not against them discussing this issue, but to enact changes to bypass the elected representation of the people seems a lot wrong to me.

I was interested to see in the newspaper this week that the Obama administration has been deporting illegal immigrants at a higher rate than the Bush administration did.

Oh yes. I find it rather ironic that this administration has been saying publicly that they are immigration friendly while the numbers of deportations have increased.
They have done an excellent job of playing both sides of the issue.

Did it also state that the rate of illegals entering the country increased as well? Or was that statistic just conveniently left off the report?

Here Obama does what you want, in bunches, but you guys find ways to casually dismiss it.

Please show that statistic. IIRC - As the economy got worse, I believe the numbers were in decline.

I was listening to NPR this weekend and they did a great segment on the use of numbers in news reports. The issue of illegal aliens was mentioned as an example. The point was made that the number in isolation is really not a useful measurement if it is taken in isolation.

This is what I was speaking about.

Further...

http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/the-...mmigrants-937/

The judge didn't strike down any part of the law; she said that the most controversial parts couldn't take effect until the case had been decided, which seems pretty reasonable to me.

Semantics, a law delayed is a law denied.

Only if Arizona loses, in which case it should be denied.

I didn't realize that HM - Now that I think about it thats even worse than striking it down.

In what way? It's extremely common when the constitutionality of laws is in question. It's better to delay a constitutional law than to enact an unconstitutional one.

I admittedly do not know what her "job" was in the situation, but she apparently didn't make a ruling. Instead of ruling for or against, she just sent the issue upstairs.

She didn't make a ruling because the trial hasn't started yet.

But apparently she did...

Key word being semantics.

What are you talking about?

She issued a preliminary injunction, preventing certain aspects of the law from taking effect until the lawsuit takes its course. She didn't issue a final ruling on the law, because the lawsuit hasn't happened yet!

If a law is potentially unconstitutional, it shouldn't go into effect until its constitutionality has been determined. That's the type of situation that preliminary injunctions are for.

What, indeed? :sweat:

Bold mine - obviously...

I'm sure it's perfectly normal and common.

There was no bold, except for the usernames.

Shawnee's post shows that you understood this stuff four days ago. What happened?

I edited the post and kept only that which I previously had made bold.
Shawnee has been on my ignore list for weeks.

Basically what you have said is that she made a decision, but not a ruling.

Bruce called it semantics. I agreed.

This:

There's no fun in the cure, the fun is in the bitch, or in the sycophantic slurping of ass-kissing.

Happy Monkey, there still wasn't any bold except user titles, was there? :lol:

Boys got a mind like a steel trap, rusty that is.

Remember, he took time to very carefully show he understood the copyright crap, but kept right on doing it. When the Cellar gets sued...can that be ignored as well?

Here's what she quoted, that showed you seemed to have understood this better four days ago:
"on hold" is not the end.
Calling a preliminary injunction and the striking down of a law as unconstitutional semanically equivalent is silly.

Option 1: contested portions of the law can't take effect until both sides have a chance to make their case
Option 2: rule for the plaintiff without hearing the case.

The difference between those options is not semantic.

I stand corrected. My humblest of apologies to you HM.

Option 3: Rule for the defendant without hearing the case.
But since she's part of the power structure, that won't happen.

I wasn't listing all possible options; I was listing the two things that had been called semantically equivalent.

A law delayed is a law denied.

But only if they lose, in which case they should have been denied.

What if they win?

ETA - Would you consider that an injustice?

If they win, then it is not denied.

Consider what an injustice?

The initial denial.

It wasn't denied. It's only denied if they lose.

ok. yeh

A law delayed is a law denied.

But only if they lose, in which case they should have been denied.

A law delayed is a law denied.

But only if they lose, in which case they should have been denied.

A law delayed is a law denied.

I'll be more direct this time: no it isn't. If they win, then the law takes effect. The opposite of denied. But if you don't have anything more to say, and repost the same thing, you can have the last word.

While all these scumbag lawyers, putting in their two hour days, fiddly fuck around, they are denying the majority of the people of Arizona the protection of this law to keep criminals from being released on the streets, and from being raped and murdered in their beds. :p:

If they win, and the law takes effect, I doubt the rape or murder rates, in or out of bed, will be affected.

Pretty cavalier with the lives of innocent women and children.

I doubt the rape or murder rates, in or out of bed, old or young, male or female, innocent or guilty, will be affected.

I'm sure your doubts, thousands of miles away, will allow them to sleep better tonight. :rolleyes:

Them? I guess we're now talking about innocent women and children who hypothetically lie awake at night worrying that immigants will rape and/or kill them. Conversations with you certainly can go to unusual places.

They'll sleep better if they get their irrational fears under control. They probably should turn off Fox and Limbaugh, since the immigrant fearmongering won't stop even if the law takes effect, which will continue to disturb their sleep indefinitely.

I must also say that it is irresponsible for the hypothetical parents to be getting their hypothetical children so scared of immigrant rapist murderers that they can't sleep.

Wow.

Wow

Wow.

MOM