• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Calls to boycott Arizona are spreading like a virus

President Obama didn't say anything new... We all know Republicans are holding immigration reform back, we all know immigration reform is needed... He just didn't say what the people are supposed to do. Push Congress? Sit back and watch? What? :shrugs:

Since I have a hard time sitting back and watching, I sent a fax to Republicans through here: http://act.reformimmigrationforamerica.org/cms/sign/obstruction/

All you need is an email address and your ZIP.
 
He did not look very good.. I don't think he helped his cause at all..

Regards... Tim of T and J
 
That was funny and scary! Perhaps now it makes more sense to her why AZ passed such laws. Perhaps now she is anti-boycott. ROFL...
 
go Ted. I agree... boundaries and boarders must be respected or penalties must be enforced. the penalties have been there for a while... they MUST be enforced!
 
As promised, here is the Federal lawsuit.

The Justice Department filed suit Tuesday against Arizona on grounds that the state's new immigration law illegally intrudes on federal prerogatives and is seeking a preliminary injunction to stop the legislation from taking effect.

The lawsuit invokes as its main argument the legal doctrine of "preemption," which is based on the Constitution's supremacy clause and says that federal law trumps state statutes. Justice Department officials believe that enforcing immigration laws is a federal responsibility, law enforcement sources said.

But the filing also contained a civil rights component as well, arguing that the Arizona law would lead to police harassment of U.S. citizens and foreigners. President Obama has warned that the law could violate citizens' civil rights, and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has expressed concern that it could drive a wedge between police and immigrant communities.

The federal lawsuit will dramatically escalate the legal and political battle over the Arizona law, which gives police the power to question anyone if they have a "reasonable suspicion" that the person is an illegal immigrant. In addition to Obama and Holder, the measure has drawn words of condemnation from civil rights groups and has prompted at least five other lawsuits. Arizona officials have defended the law and urged the Obama administration not to sue.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton first revealed last month that the Justice Department intended to sue Arizona, and department lawyers have been preparing their case. The filing included declarations from other U.S. agencies saying that the Arizona law would place an undue burden on their ability to enforce immigration laws nationwide, because Arizona police are expected to refer so many illegal immigrants to federal authorities.

The case was filed in federal court in Phoenix. A preliminary injunction halting the legislation from taking effect later this month would have to be issued by a judge. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) signed the law in April.

The preemption doctrine has been established in Supreme Court decisions, and some legal experts have said such a federal argument likely would persuade a judge to declare the law unconstitutional.

But lawyers who helped draft the Arizona legislation have expressed doubt that a preemption argument would prevail.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/06/AR2010070601928.html?hpid=topnews
 
I wonder if Az will now file a counter suit because the Feds WON'T do what the Feds agree they SHOULD be doing, instead of Az having to do it for them?

I don't know a lot about law, but it should be interesting.
 
They still need to get a federal judge to file an injunction before the suit will make any difference. So far the others who have filed suits against AZ have not been able to convince a judge that they have a case.
 
I'm just beyond disgusted this is the way the federal government has reacted- way to kiss Mexico's ass is all I can say. The federal laws support detaining people without proof of citizenship and holding them until their status is proven.....so whats the problem? Just because the feds don't want to do their job Arizona should continue to turn a blind eye while their state funds are depleted, crime rises, and schools are overrun with illegal children- great idea,lol

What got me is the feds claim they have a problem with this law because THEIR already full federal prison's will be overrun with inmates,lol I agree carrying out this law will be expensive, but something has to be done and the lack of support our government has extended is criminal:(
 
According to this article, Obama is in for a fight. Jan Brewer says AZ will take it to the Supreme Court if necessary and the Supreme Court is mad at Obama.


"As a direct result of failed and inconsistent federal enforcement, Arizona is under attack from violent Mexican drug and immigrant smuggling cartels. Now, Arizona is under attack in federal court from President Obama and his Department of Justice," Brewer said. "Today's filing is nothing more than a massive waste of taxpayer funds."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_immigration_enforcement_lawsuit
 
Article from the Examiner regarding a study from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).

According to a new study by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), illegal immigration is costing the Federal Government $29 billion annually and state and local governments $84.2 billion per year...for a total of $113 billion, every single year.

This means that the average American household has to pay $1,117 per year for millions of uneducated poor people to illegally break into our country, bottom out our wages and take our jobs.

In addition to compromising public safety, crowding our prisons and bankrupting our welfare system, the single greatest cost is education. Illegal immigrants don't pay the property taxes that fund the schools, but they do overwhelm them with under-educated, non-English-speaking children. This costs taxpayers a staggering $52 billion per year at the state and local levels.

The revenues produced by illegal immigrants makes up for less than 5% of what they consume, since even the few who do pay income taxes, for instance, make so little that they get it all back at tax time. Many of them are even getting extra income from the U.S. Treasury by capitalizing on tax credits.

About FAIR (from Anti-Defamation League)

FAIR’s activities in support of immigration control have been characterized by some political observers as promoting nativism and xenophobia, and critics have accused FAIR of using racial innuendo to promote its message. Other critics have accused FAIR of being anti-Hispanic and anti-Catholic, based on the comments of some of the group’s leaders. Such charges have been rejected by FAIR.

FAIR opened itself to such criticism with unretracted offensive statements by several FAIR leaders, and by its willing acceptance of financial support from the Pioneer Fund, a controversial foundation with a tainted history that was established to promote the discredited “science” of eugenics, and that continues to financially support questionable research into the comparative intelligence of ethnic minorities.

Immigration is, to be sure, a legitimate policy issue. Unfortunately, FAIR and other anti-immigrant groups have used reckless, distorted language and tactics that cloud and inhibit responsible debate.

Source: http://www.adl.org/civil_rights/is_fair_unfair.pdf
 
JP, I was going to pat you on the back for being so fair and open-minded by posting that article. Then you undid it by quoting the Anti-Defamation League. I don’t know anything about FAIR but the Anti-Defamation League doesn’t like any body. They think the Catholic Church is Anti-Semitic. I’m not sure their opinion is fair and open-minded.

If the figures quoted by FAIR are accurate, Imagine the fence we could build with $113 BILLION per year for construction and maintenance .
 
JP, I was going to pat you on the back for being so fair and open-minded by posting that article. Then you undid it by quoting the Anti-Defamation League. I don’t know anything about FAIR but the Anti-Defamation League doesn’t like any body. They think the Catholic Church is Anti-Semitic. I’m not sure their opinion is fair and open-minded.

If the figures quoted by FAIR are accurate, Imagine the fence we could build with $113 BILLION per year for construction and maintenance .
Be fair Wade. I am sure JP can back up what the ADL said with a quote from The Rachael Maddow Show.
:grin01::roflmao:

Just kidding JP!


More info from the FAIR study ...

Moreover, the study’s breakdown of costs on a state-by-state basis shows that in states with the largest number of illegals, the costs of illegal immigration are often greater than current, crippling budget deficits. In Texas, for example, the additional cost of illegal immigration, $16.4 billion, is equal to the state’s current budget deficit; in California the additional cost of illegal immigration, $21.8 billion, is $8 billion more than the state’s current budget deficit of $13.8 billion; and in New York, the $6.8 billion deficit is roughly two-thirds the $9.5 billion yearly cost of its illegal population, according to Jack Martin, the researcher who completed the study.
I made this oversimplification in another thread which garnered a quick response .... maybe I was actually not far off. Cali could be $8 billion in the black. :shrugs: :grin01:
 
I don't know about the Anti-Defamation League. I do know about FAIR's reputation of being unfair. The report is highly tweaked to increase costs and estimates, for example by adding the citizen children of illegal immigrants. That is my personal opinion.
As for me being fair and open-minded, I don't think I stop being such things by posting ADL's conclusions about FAIR. You can see it as a warning for readers that the report needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
Also, the fact that ADL doesn't like anyone doesn't changed the facts reported in their PDF file posted above. Those claims can be double checked elsewhere.
Can FAIR numbers be double checked elsewhere? I tried, but their study has no reference page or works cited.
 
Be fair Wade. I am sure JP can back up what the ADL said with a quote from The Rachael Maddow Show.
:grin01::roflmao:

Just kidding JP!

The Rachel Maddow Show is actually a great source of factual data. They CAN backup every single claim made in the show with credible sources. They can also expose hypocrisy and bad politics like no other (E.g. Rand Paul, BP, etc.).

And no, I would not dare to quote Rachel. I would actually post the entire video clip so everyone could hear her backing up what ADL said in her own voice. :roflmao:
 
Back
Top