Judge Blocks Key Parts of Arizona "Papers Please" Law

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It seemed as if you were using the term "political" in a disparaging way, as it often is (and sometimes rightfully so). Some decisions are politicized that ought not be.

And there is certainly the possibility of him losing public support over doing so. Personally, I applaud any leader who is willing to do what he thinks is right at the expense of votes. Far too often our leaders are more interested in their jobs than actually, ya know, leading.

I disagree with this -- I think anything that the government does is, by definition, political, and that people who call for certain things to not be "politicized" are really just trying to insulate their own desired policies from being reversed when the other side eventually wins an election. I just don't see any way around it, in a democracy, but for decisions to always be political, it is just how the sausage has to be made. It would be better to just be open about it.

I don't, however, disagree with you that Obama is "leading." I just think he is leading in the wrong direction. ;-p

[Anonymous]

When one sees something about to happen that one thinks is illegal, one can attempt to stop it by getting an injunction. There are two conditions necessary to succeed: There must be a good chance of success when the case actually goes to court and there must be an expectation that irremediable harm will be done if the action being objected to is allowed to take place.

That this injunction was granted shows that the judge agreed with the administration not only that much of the Arizona law is unconstitutional, but that allowing it to go into effect, even temporarily, was likely to do damage. Given that likely damage, it seems to me that it would have been irresponsible of the administration not to act.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It seemed as if you were using the term "political" in a disparaging way, as it often is (and sometimes rightfully so). Some decisions are politicized that ought not be.

And there is certainly the possibility of him losing public support over doing so. Personally, I applaud any leader who is willing to do what he thinks is right at the expense of votes. Far too often our leaders are more interested in their jobs than actually, ya know, leading.

I disagree with this -- I think anything that the government does is, by definition, political, and that people who call for certain things to not be "politicized" are really just trying to insulate their own desired policies from being reversed when the other side eventually wins an election. I just don't see any way around it, in a democracy, but for decisions to always be political, it is just how the sausage has to be made. It would be better to just be open about it.

I don't, however, disagree with you that Obama is "leading." I just think he is leading in the wrong direction. ;-p

Well, yes, in that sense, every decision is always political. But I think there are situations that are politicized in a way that they shouldn't be. I certainly recognize the possibility that Obama's intention may have been more political than legal in nature. He may have done it hoping to score points or because it bothered his personal sentiments and he sought avenues to overturn it. If that is the case, I would definitely label and decry those motives as political. If he genuinely believed, as PP described, that this law was both illegal and risked irreparable harm, even if he was wrong about that, I wouldn't consider that "political" except in the broadest context.

And, yes, I would even applaud a leader who led in a direction I didn't agree with. People who stick to their convictions deserve credit, even if there is much else to criticize about them. People who are bought and sold on a whim, like most of our elected officials (on all sides of the aisle), are hard to respect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This will be an issue where the politicians (R&D) will be on one side (for the illegals and their "vote") and the populace on the other. It will be interesting how it all falls through. I for one will not vote for any politician who is not against illegal immigration.

If "illegals" are voting we have some drastic problems--maybe this is how Bush won Florida in 2000. Obama did this for show for the Nov. elections and it will probably backfire, ir for not other reason, it is an anti-incumbent electorate. I predict it will end up in the US Supreme Court and unless, Scalia, Roberts. Thomas, Kennedy, and Alito, are all put on the mother ship and shuttled off to MARS, the lower court ruling will be reversed. And if that isn't the case, it will be one of the main issues in the 2012 presidential elections and the GOPers will use it to their advantage. 60 to 65 percent of American voters are against illegal immigrants and the ballot box will show their consternation. Smart politicians, if you want to be reelected, legal voters are where you put your faith not in illegals who can't vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will be an issue where the politicians (R&D) will be on one side (for the illegals and their "vote") and the populace on the other. It will be interesting how it all falls through. I for one will not vote for any politician who is not against illegal immigration.

If "illegals" are voting we have some drastic problems--maybe this is how Bush won Florida in 2000. Obama did this for show for the Nov. elections and it will probably backfire, ir for not other reason, it is an anti-incumbent electorate. I predict it will end up in the US Supreme Court and unless, Scalia, Roberts. Thomas, Kennedy, and Alito, are all put on the mother ship and shuttled off to MARS, the lower court ruling will be reversed. And if that isn't the case, it will be one of the main issues in the 2012 presidential elections and the GOPers will use it to their advantage. 60 to 65 percent of American voters are against illegal immigrants and the ballot box will show their consternation. Smart politicians, if you want to be reelected, legal voters are where you put your faith not in illegals who can't vote.

Actually, a lot of the conservative judges are big believers in federal powers, so if they remain ideologically consistent, they are far more likely to uphold the ruling. We shall see.

Also, it is not illegals who are voting, but a candidate is far more likely to garner support in the Hispanic community if he is supporting of immigrants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will be an issue where the politicians (R&D) will be on one side (for the illegals and their "vote") and the populace on the other. It will be interesting how it all falls through. I for one will not vote for any politician who is not against illegal immigration.

If "illegals" are voting we have some drastic problems--maybe this is how Bush won Florida in 2000. Obama did this for show for the Nov. elections and it will probably backfire, ir for not other reason, it is an anti-incumbent electorate. I predict it will end up in the US Supreme Court and unless, Scalia, Roberts. Thomas, Kennedy, and Alito, are all put on the mother ship and shuttled off to MARS, the lower court ruling will be reversed. And if that isn't the case, it will be one of the main issues in the 2012 presidential elections and the GOPers will use it to their advantage. 60 to 65 percent of American voters are against illegal immigrants and the ballot box will show their consternation. Smart politicians, if you want to be reelected, legal voters are where you put your faith not in illegals who can't vote.

Immigration has failed to be a main issue in any presidential election. This country has grabbed the pitchforks many times in the past. The current incarnation is nothing new. The more the Republican party digs in on this, the more pissed off Hispanics get. And since they will be about 25% of the U.S. population by mid-century, the party is creating a problem so big and permanent that it will dwarf its black voter problem. If the national party knows what's good for it, they will try to contain this by brokering a compromise somewhere along the line.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will be an issue where the politicians (R&D) will be on one side (for the illegals and their "vote") and the populace on the other. It will be interesting how it all falls through. I for one will not vote for any politician who is not against illegal immigration.

If "illegals" are voting we have some drastic problems--maybe this is how Bush won Florida in 2000. Obama did this for show for the Nov. elections and it will probably backfire, ir for not other reason, it is an anti-incumbent electorate. I predict it will end up in the US Supreme Court and unless, Scalia, Roberts. Thomas, Kennedy, and Alito, are all put on the mother ship and shuttled off to MARS, the lower court ruling will be reversed. And if that isn't the case, it will be one of the main issues in the 2012 presidential elections and the GOPers will use it to their advantage. 60 to 65 percent of American voters are against illegal immigrants and the ballot box will show their consternation. Smart politicians, if you want to be reelected, legal voters are where you put your faith not in illegals who can't vote.

Actually, a lot of the conservative judges are big believers in federal powers, so if they remain ideologically consistent, they are far more likely to uphold the ruling. We shall see.

Also, it is not illegals who are voting, but a candidate is far more likely to garner support in the Hispanic community if he is supporting of immigrants.

A political candidate is far less likely to garner votes in other communities, notably white, if he/she supports illegal immigration.

[Anonymous]

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local-beat/Nun-Killed-in-VA-Crash-99736059.html

“Sister Denise was a beautiful person, a very spiritual person and a very happy and a very jovial happy person. She loved music and dance and she loved teaching. As a matter of fact she spent several years teaching in Africa,” said Sister Andrea Verchuck.

Police said Carlos Montano, 23, of Bristow, was behind the wheel of the Subaru Outback that hit the nuns. He is an illegal immigrant who was out on bond awaiting a deportation hearing, police said Monday"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:... Police said Carlos Montano, 23, of Bristow, was behind the wheel of the Subaru Outback that hit the nuns. He is an illegal immigrant who was out on bond awaiting a deportation hearing, police said Monday"

Undeniably a tragedy. But there are hundreds of such tragedies that do not involve illegal immigrants. Anecdotal evidence can be given to "prove" just about any hypothesis. Is there a study that shows that undocumented aliens are more likely to have fatal accidents than other classes of people?

It may sound heartless to react to a tragedy with a call for cold evidence, but tug-at-the-heartstrings arguments have been the basis for lynchings throughout history.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:... Police said Carlos Montano, 23, of Bristow, was behind the wheel of the Subaru Outback that hit the nuns. He is an illegal immigrant who was out on bond awaiting a deportation hearing, police said Monday"

Undeniably a tragedy. But there are hundreds of such tragedies that do not involve illegal immigrants. Anecdotal evidence can be given to "prove" just about any hypothesis. Is there a study that shows that undocumented aliens are more likely to have fatal accidents than other classes of people?

It may sound heartless to react to a tragedy with a call for cold evidence, but tug-at-the-heartstrings arguments have been the basis for lynchings throughout history.

So what? Chandra Levy was murdered by an illegal--she would probably still be alive if he had not been here illegally. One illegal raping, murdering another person is still one too many. Wonder how you would feel if it happened to someone in your family. Bet your heart wouldn't bleed so profusely then, would it?

[Anonymous]

APPEAL TO EMOTION ALERT! APPEAL TO EMOTION ALERT!

My family has been victimized by legal American citizens. Can we deport all of those, too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:... Police said Carlos Montano, 23, of Bristow, was behind the wheel of the Subaru Outback that hit the nuns. He is an illegal immigrant who was out on bond awaiting a deportation hearing, police said Monday"

Undeniably a tragedy. But there are hundreds of such tragedies that do not involve illegal immigrants. Anecdotal evidence can be given to "prove" just about any hypothesis. Is there a study that shows that undocumented aliens are more likely to have fatal accidents than other classes of people?

It may sound heartless to react to a tragedy with a call for cold evidence, but tug-at-the-heartstrings arguments have been the basis for lynchings throughout history.

The fact that he has two prior DUIs and wasn't deported is the most compelling part of this story. It is just more evidence that the Federal govt. is unwilling or unable to enforce the law. That is not emotion, that is reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It may sound heartless to react to a tragedy with a call for cold evidence, but tug-at-the-heartstrings arguments have been the basis for lynchings throughout history.

So what? Chandra Levy was murdered by an illegal--she would probably still be alive if he had not been here illegally. One illegal raping, murdering another person is still one too many. Wonder how you would feel if it happened to someone in your family. Bet your heart wouldn't bleed so profusely then, would it?

Hey, shut off the "You must be a liberal, I hate your guts" reaction for a minute and read what I said. It was a simple comment about logic, not a political view. You are still using an emotional anecdote to make your point. You are absolutely right that if Levy had been a member of my family, I would probably have reacted with irrational anger directed at anyone at all similar to the murderer. That does not make it any less irrational.

If you want to bitch about my political viewpoint, I'm writing as a card-carrying member of the nit-picker party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:APPEAL TO EMOTION ALERT! APPEAL TO EMOTION ALERT!

My family has been victimized by legal American citizens. Can we deport all of those, too?

You weren't raped and murdered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You weren't raped and murdered.

With all due respect, you've made your point; if I'd been raped, I'd want to lynch everyone in sight. But I wasn't, so all I want to do is murder you so we can move on to something else.

That's meant in a lighthearted way; please don't take offense.