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 the state statute created a significant enough conflict with the administration’s policies to require judicial intervention.
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:
In her ruling, Bolton also blocked a portion of the law that required state officials to check the immigration status of anyone in custody in Arizona before they were released from jail.
The judge said the state measure was preempted by federal law because such checks would swamp federal immigration officials who are pursuing different priorities.
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.
During the sweeps, deputies usually flood an area of a city — in some cases heavily Latino areas — to seek out traffic violators and arrest other alleged lawbreakers. Sixty percent of the nearly 1,000 people arrested in the sweeps since early 2008 have been illegal immigrants. Critics say deputies racially profile Hispanics
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
With Congress gridlocked on an immigration bill, the Obama administration is considering using a back door to stop deporting many illegal immigrants - what a draft government memo said could be "a non-legislative version of amnesty."
The memo, addressed to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Alejandro Mayorkas and written by four agency staffers, lists tools it says the administration has to "reduce the threat of removal" for many illegal immigrants who have run afoul of immigration authorities.
"In the absence of comprehensive immigration reform, USCIS can extend benefits and/or protections to many individuals and groups by issuing new guidance and regulations, exercising discretion with regard to parole-in-place, deferred action and the issuance of Notices to Appear," the staffers wrote in the memo, which was obtained by Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican.
The memo suggests that in-depth discussions have occurred on how to keep many illegal immigrants in the country, which would be at least a temporary alternative to the proposals Democrats in Congress have made to legalize illegal immigrants.
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.
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.
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.
Did it also state that the rate of illegals entering the country increased as well?
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.
These estimates and claims rest on several annual efforts to count illegal immigrants in the U.S. The nonpartisan Pew Hispanic Center estimated that in 2008 the nationwide population was 11.9 million, and half a million in Arizona. The federal Department of Homeland Security and the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington, D.C., research group that opposes increased immigration, agree on a figure of 10.8 million for 2009, with DHS putting the Arizona population at 460,000, down from 560,000 a year earlier.
But as my print column notes this week, these estimates are limited by several factors that make it difficult for researchers to count this population. No major government survey, including the decennial census now under way, asks Americans about their citizenship status. Thus estimates of the number of illegal immigrants in the country are indirect and possibly far off from the correct count.
These studies rely on census surveys, and assume that about 10% of illegal immigrants aren’t counted in these surveys. But that figure largely is based on a 2001 survey of Mexican-born people living in Los Angeles. “I do not advise use of my estimated undercounts for the 2000 census outside of L.A. county, nor for migrants from other nations,” said study co-author Enrico Marcelli, assistant professor of sociology at San Diego State University. “However, demographers do not have any other empirical evidence at the moment with which to proceed.”
One concern is that the nearly two in five households who didn’t respond to the 2001 survey may have included a disproportionately large number who also didn’t respond to census interviewers. Marcelli said further study would be needed to test that possibility, but he noted the extent of the efforts to select a representative sample and to put respondents at ease in order to elicit honest answers.
“As far as I know, there has not been a new, serious attempt to estimate the undercount of illegal immigrants in the census,” said Steven Camarota, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies.
Further...
Larger estimates also sometimes are based on border-patrol counts of apprehensions, which are far from reliable proxies. No one is sure of how many people are missed for each one who is caught trying to cross into the U.S. illegally. Many of those who do get through may return quickly, or cross back and forth. Also, some people are caught more than once, inflating the count.
“It seems like we’re not missing that many bodies in the United States,” said Camarota, referring to the gap between the 20 million figure and his own.
The immigrant counters generally have seen a decline in the illegal-immigration population. “Economic drivers are very, very powerful” in lowering the illegal-immigrant population, said Hans Johnson, associate director of the Public Policy Institute of California. Others point to stepped-up enforcement efforts.
However, because of all the assumptions baked into these numbers, such drops come with so much statistical uncertainty that they may not be statistically significant. “The methodology for doing these estimates is not really designed to measure year-to-year change,” Passel said.
http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/the-pitfalls-of-counting-illegal-immigrants-937/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?
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...
Semantics, a law delayed is a law denied.
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 are you talking about?
What, indeed? :sweat:
Bold mine - obviously...
What are you talking about?
She issued a preliminary injunction, ~snip~
She didn't issue a final ruling on the law,
The judge didn't strike down any part of the law;
she said that the most controversial parts couldn't take effect
Semantics, a law delayed is a law denied.
She didn't make a ruling ...
I'm sure it's perfectly normal and common.
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.
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.
[SIZE="3"]Here Obama does what you want, in bunches, but you guys find ways to casually dismiss it[/SIZE].
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.
I didn't realize that HM - Now that I think about it thats even worse than striking it down.
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.
But apparently she did...
Key word being semantics.
~snip~ That's the type of situation that preliminary injunctions are for.
Bold mine - obviously...
I'm sure it's perfectly normal and common.
What are you talking about?
What, indeed?
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.
There was no bold, except for the usernames.
Shawnee's post shows that you understood this stuff four days ago. What happened?
This:
Here Obama does what you want, in bunches, but you guys find ways to casually dismiss it.
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?
I edited the post and kept only that which I previously had made bold.
Shawnee has been on my ignore list for weeks.
Here's what she quoted, that showed you seemed to have understood this better four days ago:
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.
"on hold" is not the end.
Basically what you have said is that she made a decision, but not a ruling.
Bruce called it semantics. I agreed.
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 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.
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?
It wasn't denied. It's only denied if they lose.
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.
Here's
another instance:
A federal judge in California on Wednesday overturned the state's ban on same-sex marriage, saying the voter-approved rule violated the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians.
This case works much better with the civil-rights-reminiscent "x delayed is x denied" framework. But again, it is within the judge's purview to stay the decision until the appeals are worked through. And, as it just makes sense to do so, he did.
Who's fucking whom, is hardly the same as releasing criminals from jail.
NPR may have been incorrect - I'm not sure a stay has been granted. There are conflicting reports, apparently.
A federal judge in [COLOR="Red"]California[/COLOR]
That right there is the problem
Arizona is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the 9th Circuit of the US District Court. The seat of the 9th Circuit is in San Francisco. Ergo, the judge was in California. It's the only place the action could be heard.
Note - my most recent quote is a different (California) case, not the Arizona one. But your logic applies equally well.
According to
this liveblog, there is a temporary stay, until a hearing can be held on whether to continue the stay.
I was joking. CA - REALLY LIBERAL ... oh nevermind...
Note to self -
[SIZE="1"]< don't forget the smilie>[/SIZE]
ah, humor. I think I've heard of it!
The explanation was WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY too long.
When that id the case the joke is ruined ... if it was ever funny at all.
Anyway - since we're on the subject ...
I find it interesting that a Bush appointed Judge who is openly gay decided on the case.
Many do not believe that influenced his decision.
I was joking. CA - REALLY LIBERAL ... oh nevermind...
You mean that example of an economic Liberal powerhouse? They are doing great aren't they?
I found several political cartoons about the AZ law
here, but this one seemed to fit another current thread
I'm not sure what to make of this. The article does raise some good points and questions.
Across Texas, 60,000 babies of noncitizens get U.S. birthright
Oh and it discusses the applicability of the 14th amendment as well.
The help promised by the feds has finally arrived... sorta
CNSNews
Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu said requests by Arizona law enforcement personnel and Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) for 3,000 National Guard troops along the state’s border with Mexico have been answered so far with 1 percent of that number deployed there this week.
“We have a whopping 30 [National Guard troops] this week that are showing up,” Babeu told CNSNews.com. “It’s less than a half-hearted measure designed to fail.”
But the federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has placed 15 signs along a 60-mile stretch of Interstate 8 that links San Diego with Phoenix and Tucson warning travelers of drug cartels and human trafficking operations.
The Obama administration has said it will deploy National Guard troops to the southern border incrementally to eventually have 1,500 troops in place. In addition, $600 million in “emergency border protection funding” was approved in legislation the president signed into law in August.
Babeu said the warning signs are 70 to 80 miles from the border and just 30 miles from Phoenix, the fifth largest city in the United States.
The help promised by the feds has finally arrived... sorta
CNSNews
Maybe you should ask WHY more funding hasnt arrived?
Could it be because McCain and Kyle (and the Senate Republicans) would not sign-on to the appropriation bill for additional funding (whining that it wasnt enough, despite the fact that the fy 10 funding request plus the supplemental was a significant increase over the previous years) and demanded more to fight the "crisis on the Arizona border that was out of control."
Or that the funding bill that did finally pass in Aug was a bill some here ridiculed because it was after the Senate adjourned and was "passed by unanimous consent" with only two Democrats in the chamber at the time.
Curious people ask WHY.....instead of stopping when they find an article that they think supports a pre-conceived position. Something you do all the time.
My advice. Change your signature, dude. Sagan doesnt really fit you.
This is more appropriate for you:
[INDENT]
"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."
- Abe Lincoln[/INDENT]
When all one does (again and again and again with links that never tell the full story) is open one's mouth to find fault and never attempts to understand WHY, one could reasonably be called a fool.
Ya know. I removed everyone from my ignore list a week or so ago. I thought things had cooled to the point of civility. I was wrong.
Apparently we cannot coexist here. You obviously cannot help yourself.
I've tried. I completely ignored you and your lapdog shaw and a couple others for the good of the whole. You, and she, however find yourselves unable to do so.
I asked you nicely and not so nicely not to communicate with me - again for the good of the cellar. Not for me or you. I couldn't give a shit about you and you likewise about me.
Why is it that you have to start shit and try to tell me how to live my life what my sig should or shouldn't be and make completely unnecessary personal attacks at me - Especially after
this.
Why couldn't you? Are you inherently incapable of leaving me alone? Seriously - Why is that you cannot just stay out of my life.
Why is it that you cannot help yourself? Do you have no self control? Are you so brainwashed in your beliefs that you feel compelled to try and control other people and their opinions thoughts and actions? Why would you prefer to start slinging shit on the board - again?
And for the rest of you who let posts by both of them go completely unchallenged over the past month or so... Why? You all spoke up when others did it. Whats the difference?
Why couldn't you? Are you inherently incapable of leaving me alone? Seriously - Why is that you cannot just stay out of my life.
He responded to one of your posts. Your life remains stayed out of.
I'm a little surprised at you HM. Although you and I have disagreed quite a bit and have differing views, I've always respected your opinion and your position - till that post.
Nitpicking on an expression is lower than I really thought you would go.
If what I observed is wrong -- that day after day, you post links that find fault with Obama, Democrats, Global Warming, Mexicans, Muslims and yet, never tell the full story, but you add a baseless or sarcastic remark as if your link is factual....then I will apologize.
You want examples? Most recently, the fact is that you posted racially charged remarks because you were completely ignorant of how the ethics process works in the House.
On the funding of national guard troops on the border...again, you are ignorant of the facts as to why there has not been funding....yet you offer another sarcastic remark.
Try relying less on half-truths and misrepresentation of the facts and we can get along just fine.
Lets try again. I am no longer interested in getting along with you. You burned that bridge long ago. I do not like you nor am I interested in anything you have to say. All you do is parrot the party line. I can get that anywhere. Your constant regurgitation of the same is of no value whatsoever.
Lets try again. I am no longer interested in getting along with you. You burned that bridge long ago. I do not like you nor am I interested in anything you have to say. All you do is parrot the party line. I can get that anywhere. Your constant regurgitation of the same is of no value whatsoever.
Hey thats cool.
You keep posting your links that ignore context, dont provide a full picture, or misrepresent the facts.
Add your one-line commentaries...and I will point out that you dont what the fuck you are talking about.
If I point out facts about the appropriations process or the ethics process or voting rights act, or immigration statistics, etc. and you want to call it the party line, thats cool too.
Ignorance by any other name, dude....you still demonstrate consistently that you dont have a clue as to most public policy issues. Its a shame you're not willing to be more open to learning, but evidently would rather get simple pleasures in criticizing what clearly you dont understand.
OK, it's time to
Fetchez La VacheOh and your cheap shot at Shawnee, who is a lapdog to no one and a woman who thinks for herself and demonstrates character, intelligence and humor beyond your understanding, shows what little character you have.
Ya know refuck, you waste a lot of time and words on a well scripted insult. Just simply say fuck off. Taking up for your lapdog was expected. I'm sure I'll get tons of shit from her tomorrow as well. It just doesn't matter anymore - the two of you started it and the board will be full of shit post because you haven't the self control not to let lil ole insignificant me get to you. Pathetic.
~ the ethics process ~
I was responding to the author, you ass. I never called for shit. Get your facts straight.
AND as a matter of fact, I called him out on it.
I was responding to the author, you ass. I never called for shit. Get your facts straight.
AND as a matter of fact, I called him out on it.
There are some here who dont like my posting style (no sweat off my ass) but I know and you know and many others here know that you are not the brightest bulb in the Cellar.
For a classicman, you have no class ;)
There are some here who dont like my posting style (no sweat off my ass) but I know and you know and many others here know that you are the brightest bulb in the Cellar.
For a classicman, you have class ;)
Ohhh lookie lookie another long winded insult. I know that you underestimate my intelligence and try to degrade me and my opinions every chance you get. It bothers the crap outta you that you cannot convince me to agree with you and your
opinions.
Ohhh lookie lookie another long winded insult. I know that you underestimate my intelligence and try to degrade me and my opinions every chance you get. It bothers the crap outta you that you cannot convince me to agree with you and your opinions.
I dont give a fuck if you agree with my opinions or not....it has no impact on whats important to me and means nothing in the grand scheme.
I just have a low tolerance for ignorance.
Knock it the fuck off. :eyebrow:
Interesting. So why would they purposefully delay that appointment of judges to the court? [/conspiracytheory]So they can slow down the removal of illegal immigrants and grind the process to a halt?
Obama's Justice Department has also failed to fill an eyebrow-raising number of judicial vacancies in immigration courts. As of March, one out of every six positions remained unfilled, the Center for Investigative Reporting notes. At the time, the agency had promised to hire 47 judges by Sept. 30, but only five new immigration judges have been sworn in thus far. (The empty slots are also a reminder of the glaring number of judicial vacancies that have yet to be filled in the federal courts as well.)
In the meantime, hundreds of thousands of immigrants are stuck in limbo. Some are being held in detention centers, and others are being monitored at large. It's a diverse group, on the whole: 27 percent of people in the backlog are from Mexico, 9 percent are from China, and Armenians have the longest wait time (938 days, on average). They and their families are all just waiting to hear whether they must stay or go. And both sides of the immigration debate would probably agree that the decision should come sooner than later.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/08/a_record_backlog_in_immigratio.htmlSo now this? are you feaking kidding me?
ICE skirts immigration law and begins to release illegal immigrants who have already been arrested and are waiting to be deported.
A memo from released yesterday by John Morton of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), included a new policy change that could affect thousands awaiting deportation. Morton signed a memo that went out to agencies across the country stating any illegal immigrants who have been charged with deportation have their cases reviewed and be released or absolved of any legal issues with the federal government if they have not committed any serious crime.
However, there is a catch. The suspected illegal immigrants must be able to prove they are taking care of necessary paperwork with ICE and have not committed a felony crime.
The memo read in part; “This memorandum establishes ICE policy for the handling of removal proceedings before the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) involving applications or petitions filed by, or on behalf of, aliens in removal proceedings. This policy outlines a framework for ICE to request expedited adjudication of an application or petition for an alien in removal proceedings that is pending before U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services if the approval of such an application or petition would provide and immediate basis for relief to the alien. The policy will allow ICE and EOIR to address a major inefficiency in present practice and thereby avoid unnecessary delay and expenditure of resources.” Read the entire memo; http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/27immig_memo.pdf
This new policy at ICE comes as a major blow to agents who have already given ICE’s leader, Morton a vote of no confidence.
“It’s dispiriting for federal agents,” says Mark Krikorian of Center for Immigration Studies a Washington D.C. think tank.
While the majority of American’s don’t want amnesty given to those who entered the country illegally and have committed crimes just by crossing the border or overstaying visas the proverbial golden ticket.
Many contend management at ICE and the Obama White House has already begun a back-door amnesty process bypassing Congress.
“Is it an end run around Congress?” Krikorian asked. “In an informal sense, yes. This is a policy decision that is trying to make an end run around Congress. They are saying lets abuse our existing authority to create a defacto amnesty.”
Sorry bruce, but the fucker just keeps at it even after we agreed not to - same with shaw. They have chosen to keep doing this, not I. I will respond. Fuck them. Thats bullshit.
I upheld my part of the agreement. It is they who repeatedly did not.
Merc - Its the R's fault - they are holding up the nominations. Filibustering and all that.
Sorry bruce, but the fucker just keeps at it even after we agreed not to - same with shaw. They have chosen to keep doing this, not I. I will respond. Fuck them. Thats bullshit.
I upheld my part of the agreement. It is they who repeatedly did not.
I agree he baited you, but you took it hook, line, and sinker. Don't.
I agree he baited you, but you took it hook, line, and sinker. Don't.
Sure, I baited him.
But only after
pointing out that he obviously didnt understand why there were so few National Guard posted to the border to-date to assist with border security -- because the Senate Republicans would not vote for the funding requested by the Administration to provide a significant number of National Guard for border security, just not the number that McCain demanded with his over-the-top rhetoric to "protect fearful Arizonans from the growing threats of violence" perpetrated by illegal immigrants.
I know he doesnt like to read the facts if it contradicts his simplistic one-line commentaries. :)
added:
More on baiting and how to respond.
UG baits me all the time. If I choose to respond, and I often do because its good for a laugh, I respond with facts and
not by whining that UG is picking on me or some
childish remark about blowjobs.
I understood perfectly why there weren't more there. The sooner you stop assuming you know what do or don't agree with or think the better everyone will be.
Don't project your biases on to me and don't offer me any more advice.
In fact, lets try this - Honor your word and don't interact with me at all.
What a concept.
I understood perfectly why there weren't more there. The sooner you stop assuming you know what do or don't agree with or think the better everyone will be.
Don't project your biases on to me and don't offer me any more advice.
In fact, lets try this - Honor your word and don't interact with me at all.
What a concept.
Sure...you understood....right dude!
Like you understand so many other issues where you throw out your one-line commentaries following your daily links that you agree with that and find fault with policies you dont like but that never provide the full story or misrepresents the facts.
'
I will keep point out when your commentaries are inconsistent with understanding the facts.
And you can complain to Bruce that I keep picking on you.
I understood perfectly why there weren't more there. The sooner you stop assuming you know what do or don't agree with or think the better everyone will be.
Don't project your biases on to me and don't offer me any more advice.
In fact, lets try this - Honor your word and don't interact with me at all.
What a concept.
Like you understand so many other issues.
Exactly.
In fact, lets try this AGAIN - [COLOR="Red"]Honor your word[/COLOR] and don't interact with me at all.
Hey...my word is to expose ignorance and you consistently make yourself a prime target.
Hey...my ignorance is a prime target.
Changing the posts of others (which you do quite frequently -- see remarks about blowjobs below) is a sure sign of intelligence of a higher order. Hey, if it makes you feel better about yourself, go for it! :D
Changing the intents of others (which I do quite frequently) is a sure sign of deception of a higher order.
[YOUTUBE]6PaHcZUHI00[/YOUTUBE]
I tried that - they didn't - fuck that. I'll not stand by for the BS anymore.
The time to have spoken up was when I was honoring our deal and they were not.
You mean when you removed the ignore list that you claimed to have used.
yup exactly. Are you now calling me a liar?
Just put back the ignore list sparky. I don't care who started it, so no whining. There's nothing anyone has done to get you to this level of butthurt, you're just too super-sensitive all the time. So buck up, ignore the haters and stop ruining threads.
Gotcha. That seems to be the general consensus.
Thanks.
And now some input from PA....
A federal appeals court ruled Thursday that Hazleton, Pa., may not enforce its crackdown on illegal immigrants, dealing another blow to 4-year-old regulations that inspired similar measures around the country.
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia said that Hazleton's Illegal Immigration Relief Act usurped the federal government's exclusive power to regulate immigration.
The northeastern Pennsylvania city had sought to fine landlords who rent to illegal immigrants and deny business permits to companies that give them jobs. A companion measure required prospective tenants to register with City Hall and pay for a rental permit.
Mayor Lou Barletta had pushed the measures in 2006 after two illegal immigrants were charged in a fatal shooting. The Republican mayor, now mounting his third try for Congress, argued that illegal immigrants brought drugs, crime and gangs to the city of more than 30,000 and overwhelmed police, schools and hospitals.
Hispanic groups and illegal immigrants sued to overturn the measures, and a federal judge struck them down following a trial in 2007. The laws have never been enforced.
Yahoo
This is nowhere near what AZ proposed and yet is still got squashed.
NY Times article
Water Drops for Migrants: Kindness, or Offense?
Two years ago, Daniel J. Millis was ticketed for littering after he was caught
by a federal Fish and Wildlife officer placing gallon jugs of water for passing immigrants
in the brush of this 118,000-acre preserve.
“I do extreme sports, and I know I couldn’t walk as far as they do,”
said Mr. Millis, driving through the refuge recently.
“It’s no surprise people are dying.”
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit weighed in on Mr. Millis’s appeal this month,
ruling that it was “ambiguous as to whether purified water in a sealed bottle
intended for human consumption meets the definition of ‘garbage.’”
Voting 2-to-1, a three-judge panel overturned Mr. Millis’s conviction.
Throughout southern Arizona, the death toll totaled 1,715 from 2002 to 2009,
with this year’s hot temperatures putting deaths at a record-breaking pace.
But opponents say the water drops are encouraging immigrants to continue to come across the border illegally.
The critics say there ought to be Border Patrol agents stationed near the water stations
to arrest those who are crossing illegally as soon as they finish drinking.
So furious are some at the practice of aiding immigrants that they have slashed open the water jugs,
crushed them with their vehicles or simply poured the water into the desert.
He should be convicted of conspiracy.
The critics say there ought to be Border Patrol agents stationed near the water stations to arrest those who are crossing illegally as soon as they finish drinking.
Why are they critics then?
Why are they critics then?
It's in their nature. They just have to complain about something.
Because the agents aren't there to arrest them after they drink.