The judge is a Clinton appointee, Susan Bolton, and I remember, after it was reported or learned that she was a Clinton appointee, I remember everybody said, "Ah, but this woman, she's not a political judge. She's really not partisan judge. She's a fair judge." Oh, yeah, right. Right, right, right, right....This is all reacting to the sudden news of the opinion, which he hasn't read. It's 36 pages long, and "there's no way that I'm going to be able to go through all 36 pages prior to the program ending, but I know what went on here":
This judge has not ruled on the law. There is no racial profiling. We didn't make a [big] deal of it because we figure a judge is gonna look at the law, not the stupid media in making her decision. But she listened to the media. She had to ignore the high bar that was not met in staying the law. This underscores why Sonia Sotomayor should not be on the Supreme Court. This underscores why Elena Kagan should not be on the Supreme Court, because they are activists. They have no judicial temperament, judicial experience, they're not judges. Well, Sotomayor pretended to be one on TV, I guess, but she's not....
[The judge has] bought the notion there was racial profiling and discrimination and all this happy horse manure that's part of the American left these days. So that's pretty much it. I guess the judge is saying it's not in the public interest for Arizona to try to defend itself from an invasion. I don't know how you look at this with any sort of common sense and come to the ruling this woman came to. But, she didn't. She's a leftist and she made an activist decision, not a judicial decision.So... Judge Bolton just looks at the hot-button issue and emotes without attending to the text that should govern her opinion... asserts Rush Limbaugh as he takes a glance at the news of the decision and let's his feelings flow.
To quote Rush, out of context, from the middle of that rant: "Nothing, nothing in the media is real. There is nothing real. Media is not real. [Political ideology] is not real. It's all spin; it's all fake; it's all lies."
Posts
152 comments:
It's all spin; it's all fake; it's all lies.
I can't decide if I want that on a mug or a t-shirt.
I'd get excited about this, and Rush is probably right, but:
The Democratic and Republican parties are united on this issue. Illegal immigration will not be stopped. Amnesty will be the solution, applied as many times as necessary.
Certain issues have been rule out of the bounds of the electorate by our betters. Illegal immigration is one of them.
Why get in a lather about something beyond my control?
Sloppy on Rush's part; even without reading the opinion, he should have had someone point out from the brief that the legal argument was entirely about federalism and separation of powers, and had nothing to do with race.
Still a partisan, sloppy opinion, but the focus of Rush's attack should have been on Obama's goal of forcing non-enforcement on every state, rather than anything about race or racial profiling.
I'm pretty interested in the Althouse take on this decision. For myself, I think the Judge looked for a court case that kinda-sorta said what she wanted it to say, if you read it in bad light without reaching for your glasses, and went with what she wanted, and as a result, made a cock up of what should have been pretty clear issue.
Am I wrong that this decision could be read to forbid ALL state enforcement of federal law? What are the unintended consequences of this decision?
Rush needed to fill up air time when he didn't have the chance to bring himself up to speed. Thus it's pretty much his standard issue boilerplate. I think his analysis today will be a lot more interesting.
Why don't we just cut to the chase and simply declare open borders all around? If we aren't going to impose any constraints on entering the country (and setting up housekeeping) via the southern border then to be consistent, we should simply allow the same convenience for those flying in from Europe, Asia or Africa.
If not, then our current immigration policy is racially and ethnically discriminatory on its face as it clearly favors one specific demographic over the rest of the world.
he should have had someone point out from the brief that the legal argument was entirely about federalism and separation of powers, and had nothing to do with race.
What I'm getting from Rush (and I might be projecting, because this is what I think) is that, while it didn't actually (legally) have anything to do with race, the judge was really thinking about race and that was the *real* reason for her ruling.
That makes sense to me, since didn't she basically laugh at the gov't's position in arguments?
- Lyssa
Am I wrong that this decision could be read to forbid ALL state enforcement of federal law? What are the unintended consequences of this decision?
"911 operator what is your emergency?"
"This is the First National Bank of Megabucks and we're being held up!"
I'm terribly sorry but bank robberies are a Federal crime and thus fall under the jurisdiction of the FBI and you can find their number in the white pages. Thank you for calling and have a nice day.
“This is a warning to any other jurisdiction” considering a similar law, said Thomas A. Saenz, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund , which brought a separate suit against the law that is also before Judge Bolton.
Some critics said Judge Bolton had decided too quickly. Peter Schuck, a professor of immigration law at Yale, said Judge Bolton should have allowed the law to go into effect, which it was scheduled to do on Thursday, before issuing an order that curbed the power of a state legislature.
Am I wrong that this decision could be read to forbid ALL state enforcement of federal law? What are the unintended consequences of this decision?
That was my take, too (full disclosure- haven't actually read the opinion yet, will try to tonight). I really hope that Althouse will address this question.
Me too - I am interested in Althouse's take but please try to write so a dumb layman like me can grasp what you mean. Thx.
Hoosier- that is a good one!
Well the other hypotheical is if the Mexican Army invaded Arizona to set up a buffer zone and the Federal government declined to send in the Army, is Brewer constrained from mobilizing the AZNG to repel them?
I simply find it incredible that we as a nation are having a debate in the courts over the protection of a state's soverignty.
I think I read somewhere...where was it...oh yeah the Constitution.
Thanks AJ. I mean I don't think its that far off the mark though. But like you, what do I know ;-)
For those 'conservatives' who say they miss Willie, this should remind them that the Former Serial Rapist in Chief comes from the same Ivy League/Democrat/Leftist swamp as The Zero. This is the sort of person The Zero appoints and the same sort of position The Zero takes.
PS If The Zero tries to enact amnesty over the wishes of the people, there will be real trouble in this country. It would, after ZeroCare and the bailouts, be the last straw for a lot of people.
No one I think is in my tree, I mean it must be high or low.
That is you can't you know tune in but it's all right.
That is I think it's not too bad.
Let me take you down, 'cause I'm going to Strawberry Fields.
Nothing is real and nothing to get hung about.
Strawberry Fields forever.
Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see.
It's getting hard to be someone but it all works out.
It doesn't matter much to me.
Let me take you down, 'cause I'm going to Strawberry Fields.
Nothing is real and nothing to get hung about.
Strawberry Fields forever.
Always know sometimes think it's me, but you know I know and it's a dream.
I think I know of thee, ah yes, but it's all wrong.
That is I think I disagree.
Let me take you down, 'cause I'm going to Strawberry Fields.
Nothing is real and nothing to get hung about.
Strawberry Fields forever.
Strawberry Fields forever.
Strawberry Fields forever.
--Strawberry Fields Forever
Lennon/McCartney
Is it just me or is the judicial branch the lamest branch of government? We hold the legislative and executive branch accountable through elections, where does the constitution provide for accountability of the judicial. Even the media is helpless against the judicial. A congressman casts a vote, or a president puts forth a new policy, and the have to answer to the media. Why do judges never have to face the media? Judge Bolton should have to go on the sunday shows and take the heat and defend her decision.
Hoosier:
The good news is the big govt lovers have shown time and time again that big govt is wasteful and can't hardly get any job done well.
So the next couple election cycles should be all about big vs. small govt. If the playing field is level [and I have concerns re voter fraud i.e Al Franken victory & the like], I believe the voters will endorse small govt / states rights candidates.
But we will see.
wv= bumsa
I think the judge deliberately punted. She didn't want to make a concrete ruling so she did the next best thing and let the appellate court handle it. Given that it would be appealed regardless, I can't blame her. The best thing the appellate court could do it punt it on to the supreme court and not waste our time and money coming up with some baffling ruling like the ninth circuit usually does.
Unfortunately, the supreme court will like be all vague so the damn issues will have to be appealed over and over again for years.
The saddest part of all this is that there are people who believe what Rush says is true and based on research.
I'm always taken back at the amnesty=voters logic or lack thereof. Amnesty, as Reagan praticed it, didn't extend voting rights and citizenship automatically - there were hoops and hurdles. it would seem very unlikely that we would just fork over the right to vote to non-citizens without doing so to EVERY alien who walks into the country...they should be treated the same and a residency issue from the time of amnesty will certainly be in place.
This is, in its essence, just a typical "scare 'em to death" Rush tactic. Don't fall for it.
The president "...shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States..." (US Constitution Article 2 Section 2.)
Does the presidents pardon power give him the authority to grant a pardon to unnamed parties?
edutcher said...
"Former Serial Rapist in Chief comes from the same Ivy League/Democrat/Leftist swamp as The Zero."
the Boston Swamp or the New Haven swamp?..and I think you left out father and son Bush in your little rant...
boy are you easy today. sigh.
So basically we're screwed.
Heckuva job, Barry.
For those 'conservatives' who say they miss Willie, this should remind them that the Former Serial Rapist in Chief comes from the same Ivy League/Democrat/Leftist swamp as The Zero. This is the sort of person The Zero appoints and the same sort of position The Zero takes.
Jesus. Bolton was born in PA, graduated from the University of Iowa, and was recommended and supported by John Kyl, no Ivy League leftist.
Why get in a lather about something beyond my control?
Triangle man = T-shirt, with the line above on the back.
Odd comments from a man who made his fortune in the media, regardless of what he calls IEB.
I've no doubt there's some politicking going on here, but, as a supporter of the law, I'm not all that worried. I believe the government's case is a weak one and whatever keeps their dereliction of duty in the news and on the lips of the public longer is a good thing.
Amnesty, as Reagan praticed it, didn't extend voting rights and citizenship automatically - there were hoops and hurdles. it would seem very unlikely that we would just fork over the right to vote to non-citizens without doing so to EVERY alien who walks into the country...they should be treated the same and a residency issue from the time of amnesty will certainly be in place.
You are correct sir. But let’s take a look at some key points of the Reagan Amnesty:
)1required employers to attest to their employees' immigration status, and granted amnesty to certain illegal immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and had resided there continuously
2)made it illegal to knowingly hire or recruit illegal immigrants (immigrants who do not possess lawful work authorization)
3)granted a path towards legalization to certain agricultural seasonal workers and immigrants who had been continuously and illegally present in the United States since January 1, 1982
Now isn’t it interesting that two of those three key points are today, flat out ignored by the Federal government and here we are a generation later debating ‘comprehensive immigration reform’. Been there, done that so really all they need to do is dust off that old statute and simply revise the dates.
The issue has always been enforcement. Enforce the immigration laws that are on the books. I really do not understand why this is even an issue.
Some laws are more equal than others.
Why get in a lather about something beyond my control?
Triangle man = T-shirt, with the line above on the back.
The BP spill was out of your control too but I'm betting that didn't keep you from getting into a lather did it? ;-) Then again if its not your backyard thats being used as a highway for illegals I suppose its hard to get latherd up.
Rush may be right in his analysis, but he seems to be guilty of the same pre-emptive judgement with which he labels the judge. But, of course, he's not a judge, and he's not paid to rise above his prejudices.....Immigration is not really a hot button for me. I have nothing against immigrants, I don't compete for the jobs they are seeking, and lower labor costs ultimately work for my benefit. But I do wonder why blacks and legal immigrants are on the other side of this issue. Cheaper labor costs are not in their economic interests. Also this doesn't even seem to be in the interests of Mexico. If everyone with energy and ambition goes north doesn't that leave the country in a state of pernicious anemia.
.. I do wonder why blacks and legal immigrants are on the other side of this issue...
because the left has successfully sold this as a typical Marxist class war outpost.
And because you can fool some of the people all of the time.
Immigration is not really a hot button for me. I have nothing against immigrants, I don't compete for the jobs they are seeking, and lower labor costs ultimately work for my benefit.
Hooray for feudalism!
But I do wonder why blacks and legal immigrants are on the other side of this issue.
That should be obvious.
Cheaper labor costs are not in their economic interests.
Short term, no. Amnesty is the goal.
Also this doesn't even seem to be in the interests of Mexico. If everyone with energy and ambition goes north doesn't that leave the country in a state of pernicious anemia.
The people leaving Mexico in droves aren't the best and brightest in case you haven't noticed. If it were the doctors, engineers and scientists were then you'd have a point. We are getting what Dickens called the surplus population, their hardwork ethic notwithstanding.
It's a programming mistake.
He went on way too long on the topic.
The show suffers a lot from the recent ruling class essay, which Rush now uses to explain everything.
No media all spin is a spinoff of that.
The BP spill was out of your control too but I'm betting that didn't keep you from getting into a lather did it? ;-) Then again if its not your backyard thats being used as a highway for illegals I suppose its hard to get latherd up.
No, I didn't get in a lather about the BP spill either.
Very unfortunate, but we need oil. Living with the dirty part of acquiring oil is part of the deal.
This will probably be the reality no matter how we acquire and use energy.
That is, unless we discover the Philosopher's Stone of energy. I doubt that's going to happen.
Always, there is a price to be paid.
And, I know that I advise other's to keep their mouths shut about their lifestyles. I violate my own rule for a moment, and ask pardon for doing it.
My wife, an incredible woman, passed away six years ago. I don't get in a lather about much of anything now. I've been through the worst.
If the republicans had any brains should they win big in November, they ought to immediately vote to impeach and remove from office both Judge Bolton and Holder at the beginning of the new Congress.
The judge pulled this decision entirely out of her ass. Holder's argument (the federal suit) is the supreme law of the land is whatever the Administration's policy is. A federal judge thought this is what the Supremacy Clause means? Would the left put with this if it was a republican Administration arguing this? Then there is this ridiculous principle of field preemption logic employed by the judge. Here is a thought experiment for the lefties: a reactionary congress and administration strike down all minimum wage legislation and field preempt the states from enacting such laws. Still think the Supremacy Clause also means field preemption? In addition, how can she with a straight face seriously accept the notion of 'irreparable harm' to the United States if Arizona actually detained people arrested for other reasons pending an immigration background check while ignoring the obvious harm to Arizona from the willful federal failure to enforce its own laws? Another nail in her idiotic ruling concerning the allocation of federal resources, gee isn't that the role of Congress? The same Congress that wrote the statutes and appropriated the budgets for the congressionally created executive branch agency to do what they are supposed to do, uphold federal law?
Nothing good is going to come of this decision.
It puts us one step closer to a real race war where people are going to die and probably very soon.
When people see that the Federal Government is determined to ignore the laws and refuses to protect its own citizens against invasion and crime.....and that the Federal Government will prevent the State and Local authorities from enforcing the laws and prevent them from protecting us....we know we are truly on our own.
When you are on your own, you need to take matters into your own hands and protect yourself. This WILL happen.
I see a bad moon rising.
Given Rush's admitted lack of research into the reason and grounds of the decision, he isn't real either and should be ignored. As a side note more illegal immigrants have been deported, about 400,000 this last year, than under George W. Bush-- go figure.
That is, unless we discover the Philosopher's Stone of energy. I doubt that's going to happen.
He3
DBQ - remember who has the big guns. Hint, it's not the citizenry.
As a side note more illegal immigrants have been deported, about 400,000 this last year, than under George W. Bush-- go figure.
This isn't a Bush vs Obama issue as much as you want it to be. As the former was as enthusiastic for 'comprehensive immigration reform' as the current occupant is. Obama obviously thinks that somehow the electorate will be all for it solely because he's in charge now.
Again, we had 'comprehensive immigration reform' back in 1986 under Reagan, and, as I noted above, key factors of the law are being ignored by employers and the Federal government.
We don't need a new law. We need to enforce the ones on the books.
DBQ - remember who has the big guns. Hint, it's not the citizenry.
By that logic the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq should have been over years ago.
DBQ - remember who has the big guns. Hint, it's not the citizenry.
Could be I'm missing something here, but if you're suggesting that the American military is going to take on the American citizenry wholesale (ie, "big guns"), I would like to see your supporting evidence that those personnel will fire heavy ordinance on other citizens.
We're not talking about Kent State or Ruby Ridge, here. You said "big guns".
DBQ - remember who has the big guns. Hint, it's not the citizenry.
Remember who mans the big guns. Hint. It isn't liberal elites from urban blue states.
HDHouse @ 10:34:
"I'm always taken back at the amnesty=voters logic or lack thereof. Amnesty, as Reagan praticed it, didn't extend voting rights and citizenship automatically - there were hoops and hurdles."
************
THANK you for saying this. I worked as a paralegal in the area of business immigration for 10 years. Individuals that immigrate here legally via employer sponsorship (usually the path is H-1B/L-1 to the three phases of the green card process)may have to wait YEARS before they can vote, especially the bulk of people from India and China that filed under the EB-3 category (jobs requiring a bachelor's degree). Processing times vary, and the State Dept. can change the length of time an applicant waits every month when they issue priority dates via their visa bulletin...but EB-3's from India/China can wait up to 3-5 years just to get their green card.
After that, I think its 5 years as a green card holder (via employer sponsorship) before they can apply for citizenship. THEN they can vote.
I suppose anything is possible (!) but I have a hard time believing formerly illegal immigrants will be able to quickly jump ahead of legal immigrants in terms of securing citizenship, and thus the right to vote. I wish this "amnesty = thousands of votes overnight" concept would die a quick death - it just stirs people up.
may have to wait YEARS before they can LEGALLY vote,
There...fixed it for you.
"As a side note more illegal immigrants have been deported, about 400,000 this last year, than under George W. Bush-- go figure."
So what? Are you somehow under the impression that people here view Bush as a Defender Of the Borders? What's your point?
Also this doesn't even seem to be in the interests of Mexico.
Why not? It's a low cost poverty relief program for them.
Folks it's just time to take the law into our own hands.
If Democrat Party hack judges won't allow Republican governors to enforce the laws passed by Republican legislators then we have no more use for our government.
It's time to provide for our own defense; to slough off this government and provide new guards for our liberty.
We have God-given rights ... among these are self-defense. We don't need a federal government to protect us from the onslaught of invaders from Mexico. God gave us the ability and the inherent right to do it ourselves.
Time to dust off your copy of the Constitution and protect your country.
Barack Obama sure as fuck isn't going to do it for you.
(WV: ressness .... the natives is "ressness.")
I suppose anything is possible (!) but I have a hard time believing formerly illegal immigrants will be able to quickly jump ahead of legal immigrants in terms of securing citizenship, and thus the right to vote.
I would have had a hard time believing there would be an individual mandate for health insurance. I also would have had a hard time believing that the SEC would be able, by law, to avoid almost all FOIA requests.
But both of those things have come to pass.
I don't think an injunction is a "decision."
This is political shadow boxing, as everybody knows that whatever Judge Bolton comes up with at the actual trial in Arizona, it is going to be appealed to the Circuit Court, and that decision is going to be appealed to the Supreme Court.
However, she is starting off on the wrong foot as resource allocation between Federal agencies is none of the Judiciary's business, and she is confusing Federal policy as expressed in Federal statutes with a Department thinking it can make its own policy by picking and choosing which of said statutes to enforce.
I do not know about the 9th Circuit, but I do not think the Roberts court is going to buy into that.
Also this doesn't even seem to be in the interests of Mexico
A healthy percentage of Mexican national revenue comes from American wages being sent south.
Again, we had 'comprehensive immigration reform' back in 1986
and we were promised enforcement if we accepted amnesty for illegals, just like we will be again.
ITS WHY I LEFT THE GOP
My point about the number of deportation was to show that the current laws on the book are now, finally, being enforced more rigorously-- particularly for those who commit felonies, and that the AZ laws might not contribute to greater enforcement in that area where federal regulation seems to be working, but actually prove to be a drain on resources-- one could argue that Justice Dept should have let the AZ law play out in this manner before filing suit against it.
My point about the number of deportation was to show that the current laws on the book are now, finally, being enforced more rigorously
Not necessarily. The larger numbers could be representative of a set percentage of a larger pool compared to a smaller set.
For instance if there are 10 times more illegals now than there were a few years ago and we are only deporting 8%, the numbers will be up even though the percentage or lack of enforcement is the same. In fact it could be even worse since the larger pool of illegals would dictate that if we were really serious (ha ha ha ha) about enforcing the laws the numbers being prosecuted AND the percentage would be higher.
Just stating numbers without CONTEXT (that nasty sticking point) means nothing.
Ahhhh the GOP....Rush is driving the boat and it is in Georgia...
Oclarki said...Is it just me or is the judicial branch the lamest branch of government?
I've begun to feel the same way. Since many--perhaps most, IDK--judges think that they should rule on cases like this based on their own political views rather than the law, of what use is the judiciary?
Our pols should be held to a minimum standard.
I thought their first duty was to enforce our laws. But most don't have the balls to admit they don't want to enforce certain laws. How about if all of us decided we would only follow the laws we felt like following and perhaps stopped paying taxes?
HD said...
Ahhhh the GOP....Rush is driving the boat and it is in Georgia...
Ahhhh the Democrats...Obama is driving Kennedy's car and the economy is Mary Jo.
What's your point?
To the left, a day without a Bush Bashing is a day without sunshine.
You don't need a point ;-)
If Ted Kenney drove a Volkswagen, he'd be President today.
My point about the number of deportation was to show that the current laws on the book are now, finally, being enforced more rigorously-- particularly for those who commit felonies, and that the AZ laws might not contribute to greater enforcement in that area where federal regulation seems to be working, but actually prove to be a drain on resources
How exactly could having the AZ police contributing to enforcement of the existing immigration laws be a drain on resources? I find the idea fascinating that adding additional law enforcement resources to the problem constitutes a drain.
My point about the number of deportation was to show that the current laws on the book are now, finally, being enforced more rigorously--
And this is a good thing no? I mean now that we're enforcing the law, there is no need for 'reform'. Now we can start look at border security.
It doesn't matter. No matter how the judge ruled the opinion was going to be appealed.
I also would have had a hard time believing that the SEC would be able, by law, to avoid almost all FOIA requests.
I know this is a topic for another thread but I think very very few people will fully appreciate the ramifications of this part of the legislation.
I'm pretty sure its snowing in Hell right now because I'm actually coming to agree with Robert Cook's oligarchy theory.
"My point about the number of deportation was to show that the current laws on the book are now, finally, being enforced more rigorously-- "
How about rigorously enforcing the law about securing the border?
The shortest distance between two points is a straight line.
That being said….secure the border and you don’t have to do
deportations.
HDHouse said...
edutcher said...
"Former Serial Rapist in Chief comes from the same Ivy League/Democrat/Leftist swamp as The Zero."
the Boston Swamp or the New Haven swamp?..and I think you left out father and son Bush in your little rant...
Bush, pere et fils, weren't Democrats or Leftists, nor were they traitors (mission to Moscow, anyone?) who actively undermined this country and its security.
garage mahal said...
Jesus. Bolton was born in PA, graduated from the University of Iowa, and was recommended and supported by John Kyl, no Ivy League leftist.
Bolton is a Former Serial Rapist in Chief?
"I see a bad moon rising."
Yes, there will be pockets of violence and a couple really bad scenes, but I trust the American people to stay true to sitting on their butts in front of the TV and computer eating fast food. It's globalization and high tech, baby, no turning back.
The decision was a victory for federalism, the Supremacy Clause, and original public meaning.
The FBI won't give out parking tickets, and the PDX police won't pick up illegal immigrants -- unless authorized to do so by ICE.
Everybody wins.
Sloppy on Rush's part; even without reading the opinion, he should have had someone point out from the brief that the legal argument was entirely about federalism and separation of powers, and had nothing to do with race.
No sloppiness on Rush's part. There are two lawsuits -- one by the ACLU and one by the DOJ. The ACLU suit is about race.
PS If The Zero tries to enact amnesty over the wishes of the people, there will be real trouble in this country.
How dare Obama act Reaganesque! The impudence of that creature should he try.
Peter Schuck, a professor of immigration law at Yale, said Judge Bolton should have allowed the law to go into effect, which it was scheduled to do on Thursday, before issuing an order that curbed the power of a state legislature.
If Peter Schuck thinks state legislatures have the power to create immigration law, maybe he should read Hines v. Davidowitz a few more times. And maybe Yale should refund students that part of tuition covered his class.
..The FBI won't give out parking tickets, and the PDX police won't pick up illegal immigrants -- unless authorized to do so by ICE...
and the local police will pretend not to see illegal weapons (the ATF's job) ignore the sale of drugs (DEA's job), look the other way when counterfeit money is passed (Secret Service's job)..everybody wins
How dare Obama act Reaganesque! The impudence of that creature should he try.
Disingenuous at best, FLS. Reagan's plan was proposed with the promise of strong border enforcement...which never happened.
I find the idea fascinating that adding additional law enforcement resources to the problem constitutes a drain.
The statute requires the "additional law enforcement" to turn illegals over to ICE for processing. The number of day laborers local cops snatch up at Home Depot should soon overwhelm the slots available to process violent felons.
strong border enforcement...which never happened.
So Reagan and Bush pere et fils fell down on the job yet again.
So Reagan and Bush pere et fils fell down on the job yet again.
This is exactly why, FLS, your side of the ideological spectrum is going to eventually fail.
Assuming that simply because one disagrees with the current administration one supports former administrations from the other side just proves you only see the world through one, distorted lens. Criticizing this administration and blaming all culpable former administrations is the first step toward resolving the issue.
"It's all spin; it's all fake; it's all lies."
Well, it's closer to the truth than that "rule of law" and "nation of laws, not men" crap that is worn like a smile on a con man.
Sometimes judges make me feel all Mel Gibson inside.
"So Reagan and Bush pere et fils fell down on the job yet again."
Yes, Reagan was fooled, Bush was a fool, but Obama's doing this with his eyes wide open.
So Reagan and Bush pere et fils fell down on the job yet again.
Speaking of distorted lenses, FLS, I forgot to mention that in your superfluous attempt at snark, you skipped right over a Democratic two-termer.
"So Reagan and Bush pere et fils fell down on the job yet again."
This is the problem with candidates that get nominated and win. They can never be as ruthlessly ideological as someone like Obama has pulled off, unless they are allowed to hide who they really are during the campaign. Reagan and both Bushes were softer than they campaigned. Obama was allowed to pretend to be much more centrist than was real.
So yes, on this matter, Reagan and Bush blew it. But Obama was our mistake.
deborah said...
"I see a bad moon rising."
Yes, there will be pockets of violence and a couple really bad scenes, but I trust the American people to stay true to sitting on their butts in front of the TV and computer eating fast food. It's globalization and high tech, baby, no turning back.
Interesting article about 6 months to a year ago, outlining a recent prediction by the KGB that the US would break up into as many as 6 smaller countries. Given the SMERSH types are as inept as the CIA in field ops, one might be tempted to ignore it, but their political analysis group has always been fairly perceptive.
So it may not be as cut and dried as some people think. Keep in mind, only a third of the populace at best supported the Continental cause in the American Revolution, while a fifth were Loyalists.
I can't remember reading any comments critical of Reagan here -- other than from those of the usual suspects.
Clinton concluded that Mexicans wouldn't come here if they had good jobs back home. So in a current analogy, instead of futilely trying to cap the well he tried to lower the pressure pushing the oil out. Thus he pushed NAFTA and signed it into law. Good jobs did indeed leave the US for cheaper Mexico, but eventually took off again for even cheaper China. Attempts to seal the border have so far just succeeded in moving the crossing points to more and more desolate spots.
When Rush and right start going after the multi national corporations that employe most of the illegals in this country, and not just the day laborer at Home Depot,maybe then I will take his spin seriously, until then I push to enforce our present laws.
It puts us one step closer to a real race war where people are going to die and probably very soon.
Don't get too excited, hillbilly.
"When Rush and right start going after the multi national corporations that employe most of the illegals in this country,.."
Care to name your top three violators? I'll wait while you Google.
Interesting article about 6 months to a year ago, outlining a recent prediction by the KGB that the US would break up into as many as 6 smaller countries
Yes, I read that article as well.
"in brief, that mass immigration, economic decline, and moral degradation will trigger a civil war next fall and the collapse of the dollar. Around the end of June 2010, or early July, he says, the U.S. will break into six pieces -- with Alaska reverting to Russian control."
Probably wishful thinking on the Russian's part about Alaska. It seems we are fairly on track if a bit behind schedule.
Even if it did happen, I would still be stuck in California. :-(
The statute requires the "additional law enforcement" to turn illegals over to ICE for processing. The number of day laborers local cops snatch up at Home Depot should soon overwhelm the slots available to process violent felons.
Incorrect unless of course the day laborers are robbing Home Depot which would necessitate the cops to 'snatch them up'.
I can't remember reading any comments critical of Reagan here -- other than from those of the usual suspects.
Then you either aren't paying attention or have a selective memory. There are plenty of regulars here who regularly comment about all prior administration's blame in this entire mess without taking an ideological stance.
Your tap-dancing around Cliton's part of the blame, apparently by trying to paint NAFTA as a Clinton idea (it was Bush 41) and thus a vehicle out of any culpability is a lame attempt that just bolsters my previous point. He's every bit to blame (chief law enforcement officer of the country).
There has been nothing but half-assed attempts at controlling the border my entire life. If we were to truly get serious about it, it can be done, it's just not politically expedient.
When Rush and right start going after the multi national corporations that employe most of the illegals in this country, and not just the day laborer at Home Depot...
Lawn care and home improvement businesses are multi-nationals? Actually, the big corps employ people with H-1B visas. Well, maybe not Cargill or ADM. These visa holding folks are, like many illegals, hardworking. Unlike most illegals, they are also highly educated and skilled. We have spaces available for them because too many of our citizens don't take the opportunity to go into technical occupations. Like Barbie said - "Math is hard".
When Rush and right start going after the multi national corporations that employe most of the illegals in this country, and not just the day laborer at Home Depot,maybe then I will take his spin seriously, until then I push to enforce our present laws.
I have no idea about Rush, but everyone that I know personally that's serious about this issue could care less where they work. Illegally here is illegally here. As someone pointed out upthread, very few of these people are highly skilled professionals and, thus, replaceable with other lower-skilled labor.
So Reagan and Bush pere et fils fell down on the job yet again.
I take you transformed into Rumplestilskin from 1992-2000.
I take you transformed into Rumplestilskin from 1992-2000.
No, FLS did what all of my transparently ideologue profs did when asked a question like that involving Slick Willy. They become elite ballerinas.
When debating the upcoming Iraq War back in 2002 during a class, the prof was droning on about the ruthlessness and lack of compassion of the current, illegitimate White House. A guy in the back, who never really got involved, asked this prof if there had ever been a compassionate White House. Without blinking, she said, "Yes. From 1992 to 2000". He laughed at her, picked up his books and walked out without saying anything, but continued laughing down the hallway.
@Beth
Why get in a lather about something beyond my control?
Triangle man = T-shirt, with the line above on the back.
That'll do nicely.
"Even if it did happen, I would still be stuck in California. "
Maybe Mexico will take us back. They can't do much worse with it and half of us are already Mexican nationals.
Reagan could at least claim the excuse that he hadn't seen it tried before.
DISCLAIMER: Not a lawyer; pretty liberal in my immigration views
(OK that's out of the way)
from AZ
-Judge opinion mixed. She essentially law enforcement can ask about immigration status but the process and timing is the issue. Confusing?
-she "rushed" because the law was to go into effect today. The court case was to put an injunction in place to prevent implementation. So it can now be "partially" enforced.
-Russell Pearce is happy because the "sanctuary city" part was uphold. Mr. Pearce has it out for Mayor Gordon
-Even though those against SB 1070 say this is a win they still went ahead with their protests and arrests today. (Wow I'm looking at this for the first time. Alfredo Gutierrez got arrested. He is not a BURNING RADICAL. That says something that he was willing to get arrested.)
-present temp 99 degrees with hi humidity. A great day for an outdoors protest. maybe they're trying to empathize with these guys
"Reagan could at least claim the excuse that he hadn't seen it tried before."
This is what destroys any idea for me that Obama is a smart man. Certainly not wise. Everything he is doing has only failure as precedent.
PS
My thoughts after law passage, now and for the future. It won't make any difference in day to day law enforcement and will only unnecessarily spend state and federal funds for court costs.
But it sure does energize the bases. And its done wonders for Jan Brewer's election campaign.
And here's a nice back and forth between Russell Pearce, author of the bill (and one angry guy) and Nick Gillespie from Reason
Libertarian's have issues with SB 1070 (and for good reason)
The problem with Hines is that it has been superceded by decades of Congressional action indicating a desire FOR state involvement in immigration enforcement and AGAINST the idea that the states have been preempted. What might have been true regarding congressional preemptive intent at the time of Hines is no longer true.
Speaking as a libertarian (card carrying), there are also libertarians that never would have fought WWII (for ridiculous reasons). Making the statement Libertarian's have issues with SB 1070 (and for good reason) out of context (there's that word again) does no one any good.
On another completely unrelated note, they just announced that Wrangle didn't reach a deal with the House ethics committee and there will be public trial. I agree with Bonner, in that it's a sad day, but I also agree with the Democratic chair, Lofgren, in that citizen confidence in our institutions is at an all time low and all of this cannot be swept under the rug.
And the judge apparently said in a footnote that the Arizona cops could continue to check for immigration status as they have been doing.
I think this injunction is a moonshine and horsefeathers response to a smoke and mirrors State statute.
As far as I can see, the only things the statute changes is that the State Arizona will no longer tolerate any of its local governments pretending to be "sanctuaries," and that it wishes its local police forces to consistently check for immigration status.
It is like the "Sherrod Incident" in that it is not the statute, but the reaction to it that is interesting.
Hoosier, having no control just makes me feel worse, yes. Since you brought it up, there were contractors bringing in illegals to work the spill cleanup; there are lots of illegal workers in Louisiana since Katrina. I'm assuming the new roof on our house was put on by illegals - guys willing to crawl up in the heat, pull off asbestos shingles while not wearing masks or gloves. They line up in front of Home Depot and Lowes now, waiting for work. Illegal immigration is more concentrated in the West and Southwest, but it's a national issue.
My chuckle at shoutingthomas' line was more general - there are some distinctions b/w the GOP and Dems, but ultimatey, what distinctions are there amount to farce.
I always get a kick of out of watching the bloviators on cable TV saying we need strict measures, like a SUPER FENCE, to keep out illegals. All the while playing file footage loop of Mexicans, you guessed it, scaling fences.
Speaking of the Sherrod incident...Obama blamed the media for her firing. Apparently, Vilsack is a reporter now.
Has any President been so opposed to taking responsibility for anything? I'm amazed he avoided blaming Bush.drogre
garage, I agree with you on that one!
I don't think that Rush is necessarily wrong. One criticism of the decision is that the judge starts out by stating the standard for review for a facial challenge, and then ignores it. She was right that it is a high standard. I just question whether she was able to actually find hard evidence to support such.
As a note, statutory challenges can be somewhat characterized as either facial or as-applied. A law that prevents inter-racial marriage would likely fail facially. On its face, it discriminates. On the other hand, if the AZ cops were just checking IDs from Hispanics, it might fail as-applied.
One argument against her decision is that this was a facial challenge, since the law had not gone into affect, and even if it had by a short period of time, there wouldn't be enough time to develop as-applied facts. But her harms were totally speculative and hypothetical. Arguably, they had no place in her analysis.
It should be interesting to see how this works out in the court system. It will likely go next to the 9th Circuit, which for years was the more reversed circuit, since it was the most liberal. At this point though, we really can't predict what that Circuit is going to do, because we don't know the makeup of the original appeals panel, and then, later, if an en banc hearing is requested and granted, the composition of that panel (en banc in the 9th Circuit doesn't actually mean all of the judges on the 9th Circuit, but rather, a subset of them).
DBQ shows her real colors - inciting race wars.
My only explanation is that there are a lot of people on the left dead set on driving the country to violence. What other recourse do the people of AZ and the rest of the states have now?
The civil cold war is about to get hot.
Just in case anyone is confused about Obama trying to backdoor amnesty and force it onto the American People in the dark of night. Bypassing the legislative process and hiding it from the public.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTk3Y2EwODQxMTBlOTE4MmI3MzUwZjBkNjkzODBhMGY=
The plan is to stall and obfuscate while our country is taken over. All in the name of retaining power, distributing the wealth from those who work and pay taxes to those who won't and don't. Socilism is the goal and nothing will stand in their way.
These people have no shame, are traitors and should all be gotten rid of.
When you are on your own, you need to take matters into your own hands and protect yourself. This WILL happen.
I doubt it will get to the point where the citizenry is taking up arms against the feds, but it's not too hard to envision the border areas turning into Lebanon-lite, where everybody is in some kind of militia because the state won't attend to its duties.
"like a SUPER FENCE, to keep out illegals. All the while playing file footage loop of Mexicans, you guessed it, scaling fences."
Yea, but at least it keeps out the lazy, fat and weak. Consider it a Bar exam for unskilled labor.
Yea, but at least it keeps out the lazy, fat and weak. Consider it a Bar exam for unskilled labor.
Consider how many incompetent lawyers there are out there.
I think we have to step back and recognize the practical impossibility of enforcing these several-thousand mile borders with Mexico and Canada. It has nothing to do with protecting our sovereignty or paying attention to the Constitution. It's that what garage calls the SUPER FENCE does not and will never exist so long as there are people willing to pay other people to secure cheap labor for them, or to take them where jobs might be.
What's wrong with amnesty? Some of you, and Rush, have this fear that all these new voters will all vote Democratic. That's not a serious argument against it, because it suggests that if these illegals were all, say, Mormons, you'd be less opposed because they would tend to vote Republican.
To me, the answer to this problem is a bunch of half-measures and then a recognition that we must muddle through. Yes, spend more on security, but don't kid yourself -- the border will never be totally secure. Yes, create an amnesty program, but make it onerous and don't hand out full rights as Americans too fast (including voting rights, Rush.) Make it tough enough that some people who might apply for amnesty might say, meh, too difficult.
Finally, why aren't Republicans talking about a crackdown on employers? It's uncanny. I happened across Sean Hannity's radio program, and a caller mentioned the idea of enforcing the law against employing illegals, and Hannity couldn't change the subject to the border and Arizona fast enough. Almost like he was reading from a script.
Both sides want something out of this issue other than what they say they want, and they've managed to make it so convoluted that nothing either party proposes holds up to logical scrutiny.
If Congress has turned any part of immigrant enforcement over to the states since 1941 I am unaware of it. Conservatives and libertarians are very leery of the Feds dumping anything on them -- witness U.S. v. Printz.
Your tap-dancing around Cliton's part of the blame, apparently by trying to paint NAFTA as a Clinton idea (it was Bush 41)
So the person who merely proposes an idea is responsible for its consequences, even though it went nowhere under him? Then we can blame Billy Jeff for any flaws in Obamacare.
you skipped right over a Democratic two-termer.
Hey, just b/c Clinton implemented a couple GOP ideas didn't make him responsible to implement them all. Much easier to carry on an existing program than to start one from scratch. (Hint Hint)
Obama trying to backdoor amnesty
Yes, hardworking highschoolers here through no fault of their own might be allowed to stay for college. O Dios Mio.
Did you notice that entrepreneurial visas were underutilized, and the memo proposed how to change that?
I think we have to step back and recognize the practical impossibility of enforcing these several-thousand mile borders with Mexico and Canada.
People keep repeating this, but I see no evidence that it's actually true. Well maintained borders exist all over the world. An effective fence wouldn't even be that expensive to build and maintain if there were any interest in doing so.
The real problem here is most Americans live far from the border and aren't affected by the crime. People in Texas and Arizona are worried about being kidnapped or killed by MS-13, but in Madison? A fence might close the local Mexican restaurant. Can't have that.
So I guess those fences around our prisons won't work either because the inmates will just scale them.
garage logic 101.
Finally, why aren't Republicans talking about a crackdown on employers? It's uncanny. I happened across Sean Hannity's radio program, and a caller mentioned the idea of enforcing the law against employing illegals, and Hannity couldn't change the subject to the border and Arizona fast enough. Almost like he was reading from a script.
Because the people in control of the Republican party want open immigration as much as the Democrats want it, albeit for different reasons. Recall last election there wasn't any appreciable difference between the two candidates on illegal immigration.
That kind of thing is what has been generating all the "political class" talk lately - having lost the argument the people in charge intend to frustrate the will of the voters when it comes to illegal immigration, either in Congress or, if necessary, in the courts.
As the "We Con the World" group sang "the truth will never make its way to your tv."
That's here.
That's not a serious argument against it, because it suggests that if these illegals were all, say, Mormons, you'd be less opposed because they would tend to vote Republican.
Absolutely untrue.
It is about the inherent unfairness of some people spending years and years to go through the legal process and then rewarding the people who broke the laws and are STILL breaking the law.
The laws are for everyone and should not be altered for race, creed, color, gender or religion
The security of our border and the sovereinity of our nation are what is at stake. If we were being invaded by 3 million Norwegians I would feel the same.
In addition it is about ILLEGALS coming into the country and destroying the economic health of the states, taking jobs from low income workers, NOT PAYING TAXES and utilizing the free welfare benefits that are paid for by people who DO pay taxes.
If LEGAL immigrants came into the country and 100% of them decided to vote Democrat that would be their choice.
And I DO agree with Stoddard we must crack down on employers and the enablers.
"Interesting article about 6 months to a year ago, outlining a recent prediction by the KGB that the US would break up into as many as 6 smaller countries.'
I recall that, but didn't read an article...I see from DBQ's quote, they really meant soon! A prediction that would take much more time, but interesting to speculate about.
So is there a timeline for when the injunction will be lifted or is is indefinite?
shoutingthomas said...
Illegal immigration is one of them.
Get it straight. It's not illegal immigration, it's foreign invasion and if you don't believe that, then tell me why there are foreign invasion activist sympathizers advocating for these people and protesting in their names and in government who are willing to sanction this activity without so much as lifting a finger to stop it?
Alex said...
DBQ shows her real colors - inciting race wars.
Hey asshole, I've been advocating the expulsion of illegals (aka foreign invaders) from Ireland, China, Korea, Russia, Mexico, Canada, take your pick. It isn't about race, asshole, it's about people who DO NOT DESERVE TO BE HERE!!! How fucking thick are you people with your simpleton points of view that the whole of humanity is entitled to invade the sovereign confines of the borders of an established nation, like the US, without consequences or repercussions, not only to themselves but to the citizenry that is already here?
If you are really worried about the poor, downtrodden Mexicans that paid a lot of money to get smuggled over the border of the US, then why aren't you down in Mexico right now advocating that Mexico stop shooting Guatemalans that invade into Mexico at their southern Mexican border, hmmm? Your type of argument is devoid of any meaningful construct or thought. It's just a raw, unadulterated, lashing out of emotional twaddle.
John Stodder: Finally, why aren't Republicans talking about a crackdown on employers?
Uh, why would people who love illegal immigration and want to keep it coming (and then some) support the most straightforward and effective method for putting a stop to illegal immigration?
The Republicans run defense for the scofflaw employers ("oh goodness gracious, e-verify is just an unbearable burden on business!") while pretending to be terribly concerned about enforcement at the border. Meanwhile, the Democrats work from the other end, concentrating on caterwauling about "human rights" and "racial profiling" and such, while pretending to be all indignant about worker exploitation.
The "sides" on this issue aren't the Republicans v. the Democrats.
It's uncanny. I happened across Sean Hannity's radio program, and a caller mentioned the idea of enforcing the law against employing illegals, and Hannity couldn't change the subject to the border and Arizona fast enough. Almost like he was reading from a script.
What's uncanny about a shill reading the script supplied by his sponsors?
Eric: People keep repeating this [that borders cannot be enforced], but I see no evidence that it's actually true. Well maintained borders exist all over the world.
You know what's really uncanny? The way the same border can be physically enforced in some decades, and then in other decades this enforcement becomes completely impossible, even with vastly more sophisticated technology. It's like the Twilight Zone or something. Spooky.
"DBQ shows her real colors - inciting race wars."
Hey asshole, I've been advocating the expulsion of illegals (aka foreign invaders) from Ireland, China, Korea, Russia, Mexico, Canada, take your pick. It isn't about race, asshole, it's about people who DO NOT DESERVE TO BE HERE!!!
Predicting isn't inciting.
Methadras is right. It is about the laws. The rule of law and fairness.
People are going to get tired of the double triple (with a back flip) standards. I don't advocate it....but I see it. A bad moon a'rising
LarsPorsena said...
"So Reagan and Bush pere et fils fell down on the job yet again."
Yes, Reagan was fooled, Bush was a fool, but Obama's doing this with his eyes wide open.
To hopefully clarify, Bush I was less of a fool than Bush II.
----------------
On Edutchers saying he disliked conservatives maintaining that "serial rapist" Clinton was a better Presdient than Bush II.
He was. Any year of Clinton, post 1994 is better than the hapless Dubya starting in his second year. And I'd take any year of Nixon the crook over Clinton, Carter, Bush, or Obama.
It takes time to evaluate just how damaging a failed President like Bush II, Carter, or a likely to be seen as failed Black Messiah was to the country...
The full damage of Bushes tax cuts in time of war, the two eternal wars themselves, how he let China destroy 30 US industries, the warning signs of Meltdown he ignored, Open Borders, "The Religion of Peace", failed supply side theories have to be weighed over time.
For now though, he seems unlikely to be in the absolute bottom of the cellar of Presidents - given Carter and Harding. And Bush II might not even be Bottom 3 if Obama keeps going the way he is.
The Obama administration doesn't want to stop illegal immigration. It only cares about making the immigrants legal once they get here.
This always makes me wonder. What is Obama's bottom line? I read once that 20% of the world's population would like to emigrate to the United States. That's 1.4 billion people. Would Obama welcome all of them? If you manage to make it across the border we have to offer you citizenship?
No wonder California's financial status is one step above junk bonds.
"Nothing, nothing in the media is real. There is nothing real. Media is not real. [Political ideology] is not real. It's all spin; it's all fake; it's all lies."
No shit, Sherlock.
Eric: People keep repeating this [that borders cannot be enforced],
And I dont think they're making the point in good faith. Its like saying "we cant keep ALL the oil from reaching the wetlands, so lets not skim at all".
Its Libtard Logic.
Any year of Clinton, post 1994 is better than the hapless Dubya starting in his second year.
Thats only because Clinton kicked the can down the road. Al Queda is just one example of many. Clinton even bragged that he left "time-bombs" behind to hamstring the incoming Republican.
3,000 dead Americans. Nice time-bomb, Bill. Maybe if you hadn't been so distracted molesting the staff while Al Queda was plotting 9-11....
the warning signs of Meltdown he ignored
Sorry but thats more bullshit. As early as 2002, Bush went to Congress TWICE to get them to do something about Freddie and Fannie. The Democrats demagogued and called him racist. And promised us nothing was wrong.
Hell, its on fricken video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM
FLS: Yes, hardworking highschoolers here through no fault of their own might be allowed to stay for college. O Dios Mio.
More Libtard Logic. Hey, lets not imprison a parent for murder because it would ruin the child's life....
How about this proposal? We allow in anyone who is willing to work hard and deport those who won't?
Win win.
What a bunch of hypocrits we Americans are!
We stole Mexico with our big ol'military, just like we continue to do around the world.
Now we have the audacity to demonize the very folks we bilked from returning to their homeland.
Shame on us, again....
What a bunch of hypocrits we Americans are!
We stole Mexico with our big ol'military, just like we continue to do around the world.
Now we have the audacity to demonize the very folks we bilked from returning to their homeland.
Shame on us, again....
God I hope that was parody of a Libtard.
The SPANISH stole SW America from "mexicans". The TEXANS stole it from them.
BTW, get your ass off my Cherokee lands. Go back to Europe and damn the Normans for conquering but not wiping out your pathetic line.
And dont forget to whine about the Roman Empire while you're there...
What a bunch of hypocrits we Americans are!
We stole Mexico with our big ol'military, just like we continue to do around the world.
Sheesh, it took 140+ comments before someone brought out the Yanqui Imperialist theme.
Guys are slackin.
Obama is a Non Allegiant, Ineligible, Non Natural Born Citizen, installed by the World Debt Masters to put the final touches on the destruction of the sovereignty of We the People. He knows full well (he is a "constitutional scholar") that his admittion of dual citizenship at birth (his father was a Kenyan Citizen, and never a US Citizen or even resident) with Britain makes him NOT ELIGIBLE, no matter if he were born in the White House on the 4th of July, delivered in the oval office by JFK. There is no such thing as "birthright citizenship" for the children of illegal aliens. They are born subject to the jurisdiction of their parents, and then their parent's country, not the US. Unless their parents become legal residents or US Citizens, they have NO RIGHT TO US CITIZENSHIP. This needs to be reasserted by the SCOTUS, as it would solve half the problem. What part of ILLEGAL does Obama not understand? (Oh I forgot momentarily who we were talking about).
More Libtard Logic. Hey, lets not imprison a parent for murder
You got that from the memo dbq's article linked to? Which paragraph covered amnesty for illegal murdering parent aliens?
They are born subject to the jurisdiction of their parents, and then their parent's country, not the US.
What if their parents have no nationality? Note that Mexico counts returning Mexicans as immigrants, not natives. Granting citizenship to those born on your soil ensures that everyone is a citizen of some country.
Fen: More Libtard Logic. Hey, lets not imprison a parent for murder
FLS: You got that from the memo dbq's article linked to? Which paragraph covered amnesty for illegal murdering parent aliens?
I got it from your 7:31pm... "Yes, hardworking highschoolers here through no fault of their own might be allowed to stay for college"
You want amnesty granted to criminals "for the children".
Lets not deport the law-breakers, their kids will have to change high schools. Wah.
FLS: What if their parents have no nationality? Note that Mexico counts returning Mexicans as immigrants, not natives.
Shoulda thought of that before you jumped the fence.
former law student said...
"They are born subject to the jurisdiction of their parents, and then their parent's country, not the US.
What if their parents have no nationality? Note that Mexico counts returning Mexicans as immigrants, not natives. Granting citizenship to those born on your soil ensures that everyone is a citizen of some country."
Another nonsense relativist strawman argument. It is apparent why you are a
"former" law student.
The parents are not considered citizens of the US, they ar MEXICAN citizens. As such their children are citizens of Mexico, not the US.
Post a Comment