Calls to boycott Arizona are spreading like a virus

[Outcast]

That's the worst reason I think I ever heard to have a population increase... so someone pays social security for the aging retired ones? Really? Then who pays for those people when they get old? And would the population not have to increase exponentially to work that way?
LOL I know it wasn't meant seriously but overpopulation of the planet is something I really care about. In fact, too many humans on planet Earth just gets me a lot more angry than too many illegals in the U.S. for some reason.

Population Inflation.... sounds like its the only way to go right? It actually sounds pretty dumb to me... May be a good band name though....LOL

 

[wstphal]

That's the worst reason I think I ever heard to have a population increase... so someone pays social security for the aging retired ones? Really? Then who pays for those people when they get old? And would the population not have to increase exponentially to work that way?
LOL I know it wasn't meant seriously but overpopulation of the planet is something I really care about. In fact, too many humans on planet Earth just gets me a lot more angry than too many illegals in the U.S. for some reason.

That is actually how retirement/old age has ALWAYS worked! I am not advocating it as a good thing, and I understand the concern about overpopulation of the planet as a whole, just pointing out where things stand currently.

 

[tsst]

Transporting the fedgov case documents! :grin01::grin01::grin01:

 

[jpccusa]

Interesting idea which I support:

Memo outlines backdoor 'amnesty' plan
Immigration staffers cite tools available without reform
By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times
8:39 p.m., Thursday, July 29, 2010

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.

Chris Bentley, a USCIS spokesman, said drafting the memo doesn't mean the agency has embraced the policy and "nobody should mistake deliberation and exchange of ideas for final decisions."

"As a matter of good government, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will discuss just about every issue that comes within the purview of the immigration system," he said in an e-mail statement. "We continue to maintain that comprehensive bipartisan legislation, coupled with smart, effective enforcement, is the only solution to our nation's immigration challenges."

He said the Homeland Security Department "will not grant deferred action or humanitarian parole to the nation's entire illegal immigrant population."

The memo does talk about targeting specific groups of illegal immigrants.

Mr. Grassley said it confirms his fears that the administration is trying an end-run around Congress.

"This memo gives credence to our concerns that the administration will go to great lengths to circumvent Congress and unilaterally execute a backdoor amnesty plan," Mr. Grassley said.

The memo acknowledges some of the tools could be costly and might even require asking Congress for more money.

At one point, the authors acknowledge that widespread use of "deferred action" - or using prosecutorial discretion not to deport someone - would be "a non-legislative version of 'amnesty.' "

The authors noted several options for deferred action, including targeting it to students who would be covered by the DREAM Act, a bill that's been introduced in Congress.

In testifying to the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 11, Mr. Mayorkas first said he was unaware of discussions to use these kinds of tools on a categorical basis, then later clarified that officials had talked about expanding the use of those powers.

"I don't know of any plans. I think we have discussed, as we always do, the tools available to us and whether the deployment of any of those tools could achieve a more fair and efficient use or application of the immigration law," he said.

He acknowledged, though, that he was not aware that those powers had ever been used before on a categorical basis.

Sen. John Cornyn, the Texas Republican who queried Mr. Mayorkas on the subject, warned him against pursuing that strategy.

"I think it would be a mistake for the administration to use administrative action, like deferred action on a categorical basis, to deal with a large number of people who are here without proper legal documents to regularize their status without Congress' participation. I will just say that to you for what it's worth," Mr. Cornyn, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary immigration, border security and citizenship subcommittee, told Mr. Mayorkas.

"The American public’s confidence in the federal government’s ability and commitment to enforce our immigration laws is at an all-time low," Mr. Cornyn said in a statement. "This apparent step to circumvent Congress – and avoid a transparent debate on how to fix our broken immigration system – threatens to further erode public confidence in its government and makes it less likely we will ever reach consensus and pass credible border security and immigration reform.”

After reports earlier this year that the agency was working on these sorts of plans, Senate Republicans, led by Mr. Grassley, have sent letters to President Obama and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano asking for details.

In one letter, the senators warned the president against making an end-run around congressional authority to write immigration rules, and asked for Mr. Obama to promise that he would not use the rules to grant mass pardons.

Rosemary Jenks, government relations manager for NumbersUSA, an organization that advocates for stricter immigration limits, said the memo is "an outrageous usurpation of congressional authority. It is unconstitutional, and a slap in the face to the American people."

She said that the memo could explain why the push for an immigration bill has faltered in Congress.

"This makes sense of the fact that [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid and [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi and Obama are sitting back calmly content with not moving immigration reform this year - because they know Obama is trying to take care of it for them, without Democrats having to be tied down to a vote before the election," she said.

On the other side of the political spectrum, immigrant rights groups have demanded that Mr. Obama halt deportations until he secures a broad legalization bill from Congress - legislation that supporters call "comprehensive immigration reform" because it would tackle enforcement, some aspects of legal immigration and the status of illegal immigrants at the same time.

Two senators earlier this year wrote asking the administration to use its powers to stop deporting students who might be eligible for the DREAM Act, which would allow illegal immigrant college students brought to the U.S. at a young age to gain legal status. The legislation has not been passed by Congress.

Mr. Obama has rejected halting deportations, but his administration has been more careful about whom it pursues.

According to new figures from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the administration has stepped up its efforts to deport illegal immigrants convicted of crimes, but removal of "non-criminal" illegal immigrants has slowed so far in fiscal 2010.

Source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...lines-backdoor-amnesty-plan-for-obama/?page=1

 

[jpccusa]

Another good video/research from the Rachel Maddow Show

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#38530884

 

[jpccusa]

Just found these to be funny.

 

[Snakehead]

"Calls to boycott Arizona are spreading like a virus"

Funny how the people geting upset about this law don't live there and don't have to deal with the problems everyday!

 

[jpccusa]

"Calls to boycott Arizona are spreading like a virus"

Funny how the people geting upset about this law don't live there and don't have to deal with the problems everyday!

Funny how you stumbled upon this thread and decided to add nothing to it. unch:

When the problem affects the nation and one state decides to act on it, the nation should watch the actions of the state really close. And if only people living in the state and people having to deal with the problems everyday were the ones who should get upset about the law, then why did a federal judge had to intervene? Hmmmm....

 

[Lovin2act]

I dunno if I would say it added nothing, I thought his point seemed pretty straightforward and valid. A single simple thought rather than a novel of over-complicating mounds of thoughts is refreshing once in a while. In my opinion of course.

And as you say the nation should have continued watching the actions of that state. But it should not have intervened.

 

[wstphal]

JP, I love the cartoons. I haven't been back to this thread in ages so I missed seeing them. Oh, and if the Native Americans/American Indians HAD done those things they would have been well within their rights. My ancestors would have been annoyed, but that wouldn't make it wrong. All I can say in defense of my ancestors is that at the time they didn't know what they were doing was wrong. And all the treaties that were NOT kept were wrong. I don't know, looking back, what the right way forward is, because I can't see punishing today's Americans for wrongs their ancestors committed (that's a form of racism in my eyes) but acknowledging the wrong and trying to do things differently should happen.

 

[jpccusa]

Immigration reform heats up again as elections and trials approach

Immigration reform lawsuit costs will be paid by private citizens, who have already raised $3.6 million to support the Arizona laws in court.

Immigration reform has returned to center stage as the November elections and Arizona immigration law trials near. Monday, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and California Lieutenant Governor Abel Maldonado hosted a meeting with governors from 6 Mexican states to discuss immigration reform.

But if Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer's experience signals anything for other states and cities, it's this: Be prepared for long and costly legal battles.

The tough Arizona legislation, SB1070, spawned seven lawsuits, including one by the Justice Department that prompted Federal District Judge Susan Bolton to block key components of the law until the case goes to trial. Governor Brewer's legal team requested that a federal appeals court judge reverse the decision, but the request was denied. Judge Bolton dismissed another of the seven that had been filed by a police officer, citing precedent that public officials cannot sue to block laws they don't want to enforce.

The six remaining cases are scheduled for trial in November.

In the first month of litigation alone, the state ran up roughly $77,000 in legal bills by the Phoenix-based law firm handling the case.

How does a state afford huge legal bills when its budget problems are so big that it had to sell and then buy back its Capitol building?

Brewer's answer was to establish an independent fund to support the law's legal defense as the case moves to trial, having included a provision within the law allowing for independent counsel to be used instead of the state attorney general. That way, taxpayer money won't be used to defend the law.

As of July 30, some 35,660 donors, most of them private citizens, had contributed nearly $1.7 million to the Border Security and Immigration Legal Defense Fund through the fund's website and mail-in contributions, according to Brewer’s office. In the following five weeks, that more than doubled. By September 9th, 42,184 donors had contributed over $3.6 million, mostly through mail-in donations.

If the full law is eventually instituted, the legal costs could be substantial. Then they probably would be passed onto Arizona’s taxpayers, since the state would likely have to allocate additional resources towards prosecuting the new law’s violators. The increased costs could mean cuts elsewhere.

Other states are watching. In the first six months of 2010, 46 states introduced nearly 1,400 immigration-related bills, and five of them – South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Rhode Island, and Michigan – have introduced bills similar to Arizona’s controversial SB 1070, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Source: http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/n...ats-up-again-as-elections-and-trials-approach

 

[jpccusa]

Good advises IMHO.

Focus on state's economy and skip the distractions

Arizona should not put itself in the middle of another scalding national battle over immigration.

Those who want the next Legislature to challenge the U.S. Constitution over birthright citizenship should focus instead on the state's more immediate needs.

The economy has to be the top priority.

• The state's 9.7 percent unemployment rate is the highest in 27 years. Higher than the national average.

• Some 364,500 jobs have been lost in Arizona since December 2007, according to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee.

• Arizona's foreclosure rate is among the highest in the nation.

• The state is facing a cash shortfall of more than $1 billion every year through 2014, according to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee's August budget-status update.

• Arizona is currently facing a nearly $300 million hole for this fiscal year. And if voters reject diverting money from two voter-approved funds in November, that will increase to $700 million.

Arizona's elected officials need to put their full attention on fixing the economy and finding ways to balance the budget that do not undermine Arizona's economic future.

The state does not need another distraction.

The strong reaction to SB 1070, Arizona's controversial new immigration law, has led to boycotts aimed at harming the economy of this state and one of its key industries - tourism.

This newspaper opposed SB 1070 because we believe it drives a wedge between our Latino citizens and the majority population. We've also criticized the boycotts that have unfairly painted Arizona as an island of intolerance, when in fact ours is a state burdened with the brunt of the country's illegal-immigration problem.

Business in this state is reeling from uncertainty, largely from an ailing national and state economy. It did not need the added uncertainty SB 1070 created. The legislation is facing numerous legal challenges and will undoubtedly wind up before the high court.

The sideshows around SB 1070, including a call for a boycott by the state's own Democratic U.S. Rep. Raúl Grijalva and talk of headless bodies in the desert by Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, were another bucket of cold water on those looking to invest in Arizona.

Both Grijalva and Brewer have backed off. But the damage is done. The false image of Arizona as discriminatory and dangerous lingers.

It is instructive to remember that damage was inflicted in the heat of rhetoric over a state law aimed at a federal problem. The publicity made Arizona look silly and backward. Not the kind of adjectives the chambers of commerce like to use.

This isn't just about image. On its merits, a proposed state law stigmatizing children of illegal immigrants is also a loser.

Denying citizenship to these children would be punitive, but not particularly effective in reducing illegal immigration. Jobs are the magnet, not birth certificates. What's more, the question of birthright citizenship is being discussed at the federal level and will ultimately be decided there. Arizona does not need to fight this bruising, divisive battle.

The Arizona Republic has been calling for meaningful, comprehensive federal immigration reform continuously since 2002. Arizona suffers disproportionately from illegal immigration, and Arizona's congressional delegation has a responsibility to pursue federal reform.

State lawmakers and the governor have a responsibility to focus on Arizona's economy.

We can't afford anymore distractions.

The state's elected officials need to focus on job creation, the economy and the budget.

Source: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarep.../09/19/20100919arizona-economy-editorial.html

 

[jpccusa]

New numbers regarding SB 1070

Cost to defend Arizona immigration law tops $1 million

The bill for defending Arizona's newest immigration law has now passed $1 million, and that's for work done only through July.

Gov. Jan Brewer's office on Wednesday released the latest round of invoices from its outside legal counsel, Phoenix law firm Snell & Wilmer. July costs were $621,846.16. May and June costs had totaled $440,520.25.

Money to pay for the state's legal costs is coming from Brewer's legal-defense fund, which has received $3.7 million from 42,727 individuals in all 50 states.

Legal fees are expected to continue to be high over the next couple of months.

The governor and her attorneys are traveling to San Francisco next week to ask the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to overturn a district court ruling that prevented part of Senate Bill 1070 from going into effect.

Source: http://www.azcentral.com/news/artic...rizona-immigration-law-cost-through-july.html

 

[Fatman608]

I wish TEXAS would do what Arizona is doing. I may get my wish come Nov 2.

Love the Fatman

 

[vetusvates]

This reminds me of how that brand new (_______) gleams a little less when the bills start coming in.

JP, this also reminds me of an administrative rule-of-thumb I learned from a wise boss over 20 years ago.
"The more rules you make...the more rules you have to enforce."

 

[Lovin2act]

I wish TEXAS would do what Arizona is doing. I may get my wish come Nov 2.

Love the Fatman

Well it may be spreading:



http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upsho...re-considering-arizona-style-immigration-laws

An immigrant-rights group has released a report (PDF) predicting that 25 states may try next year to pass anti-illegal-immigration laws similar to Arizona's controversial legislation.

The number of states considering legislation modeled after SB1070, the bill that Arizona GOP Gov. Jan Brewer signed into law this spring, is apparently growing: Earlier, pro-enforcement groups said 22 states were considering the bill, the Washington Independent's Elise Foley notes.

The new efforts are going forward even after a federal judge ruled key parts of the Arizona law unconstitutional and enjoined its enforcement in Arizona in July. That decision is now under appeal before the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court.

Georgia, Mississippi, Oklahoma and South Carolina are most likely to pass a similar law next year, the new report says. Tennessee, Utah, Florida, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Texas, Arkansas, Indiana, Colorado, Virginia, Minnesota, Missouri, Idaho and Kansas made the report's "maybe" list. In Maryland, Nevada, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Michigan, Ohio and Rhode Island, the legislation is seen as less likely to pass.

The report notes that from 2006 to 2008, municipalities passed a host of local laws and statutes cracking down on employers hiring illegal immigrants.

This next wave of legislation, the report says, will be aimed at getting local law enforcement to check immigration status in routine police stops, as SB1070 mandates.

Lawmakers may be influenced by how the Ninth Circuit rules on SB1070, and how the Supreme Court rules on the state's 2007 employer-sanction law passed. Finances may also influence local politicians' decisions, as more immigration-related arrests and court battles end up costing cities and counties that adopt such rules.

One industry stands to benefit from such laws. In Arizona's case, the private prison industry helped guide the process that made SB1070 law and even gave the legislation its name while working with legislators, NPR reports. Thirty of the cosponsors to SB1070 later received money from the private prison industry or its lobbyists.

 

[Leew]

The article that JP posted above says that AZ unemployment is at 9.7. In the neighboring state of Nevada, their unemployment is at 15%. I wonder where all the illegals from Arizona went?

 

[TandJ]

I wonder where all the illegals from Arizona went?

California.. *lol* I can take a picture of the illgeals working in my hood right now that have Arizona plates.. *LOL*

 

[TandJ]

When the problem affects the nation and one state decides to act on it, the nation should watch the actions of the state really close. And if only people living in the state and people having to deal with the problems everyday were the ones who should get upset about the law, then why did a federal judge had to intervene? Hmmmm....

Why did the Federal Judge intervene? Because the law thinks we are to stupid to vote for what we the people believe is the right thing to do?? Or something silly like that..

 

[Outcast]

This thread should guest star on "Walking Dead".