Dems Vow to Kill AZ Immigration Law?...

[saveliberty]

Seems to be addressing illegal immigration enough to send illegals running from Arizona.

 

[Navy1960]

Here is some added thoughts, the US Border Patrols Budget is 11.8 Billion Dollars. Just to give you an idea, NASA Budget 18.4 Billion, EPA Budget 8.973 Billion, DOE Budget 29.3 Billion, DOD Budget 678.3 Billion, the F35 Joint Stike Figher program 5.8 Billion. So given the fact we spend little to nothing in Border protection say vs. building roads in Iraq or Afghanistan then perhaps one begins to see that the real problem is not with the people that try to come here for a better life or even the laws we have but the lack of focus on this issue on behalf of where it rightly belongs and that is in the hands of the Federal Govt. who's job it is to protect the borders of this nation.

 

[Listening]

What is more interesting is that Chuck Schumer, like that asshole judge on Prop *. seems to think the democratic process only works for THEM. If it works against it, they'll shove it to whoever.

Not that Chucky can get a bill through. He's become the turd of the Senate.

 

[RoadVirus]

"And now, New York Senator Charles Schumer, Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, and the Democrats are threatening to force a floor vote on legislation that would invalidate the Arizona law if it is upheld by the highest court in the land.

Well, Chucky, go for it."


Dems Vow to Kill AZ Immigration Law?...GO FOR IT. - San Francisco Immigration | Examiner.com

Apparently Chucky needs a little refresher course on the boundries of the Legislative branch.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Senator Charles Schumer of New York said his measure will make clear that Congress doesn’t intend for states to enact their own immigration enforcement strategies. He said it will allow states to apprehend suspected illegal immigrants only as part of an agreement overseen by the federal government.

“States like Arizona and Alabama will no longer be able to get away with saying they are simply helping the federal government to enforce the law,” he said during a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing on state and local enforcement of immigration laws. Those states are “writing their own laws and knowingly deploying untrained officers with a mission of arresting anyone and everyone who might fit the preconceived profile of an illegal immigrant,” he said.

Schumer Drafts Bill to Block Arizona Immigration Crackdown - Businessweek

True.

This attack of the Constitution and individual liberty was initiated by the radical right, conservatives shouldn’t be surprised when defenders of the Constitution and its case law fight back.

 

[saveliberty]

Schumer better step up and help stop illegal immigration, or he's just part of the problem.

 

[Darkwind]

[Is Donald Verilli that bad a lawyer, or are the cases his bosses, Obama and Holder, are asking him to argue that ridiculiously contemptible? The Big "O" has no intention of enforcing this nations immigration laws because he wants to dilute out those people that hold this nation's heritage, traditions, founders, and its Constitution with some respect. It is especially so because Mr Obama has absolutely no respect himself for any one of them, his ego the size of Michael Moore's @ss.]

"At that time, the local bar was buzzing about a lawyer who had a really bad day in court: he was kicked to death by a moose in the parking lot of the federal courthouse in Anchorage. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli didn’t have that bad a day today in the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that Arizona’s immigration law is invalid by virtue of federal pre-emption, but he was kicked about a good bit by the justices.

On Twitter, Byron York asked: “Question for legal types: Is Donald Verrilli bad at his job or just burdened by having to defend the indefensible?” You can read the entire argument here and draw your own conclusions, but in my opinion, the problem was not with Verrilli but rather with the quality of the arguments that he was required to make by his client, the Obama administration.

Justice Sotomayor was commenting here on an extraordinary aspect of the Obama administration’s position, to the effect that it is OK if individual Arizona law enforcement officers decide to cooperate with federal immigration authorities, but if the state directs them all to cooperate, it is somehow unconstitutional. The Obama administration literally argued that for a state to engage in “systematic cooperation” with the federal government on immigration is unlawful. We can’t blame Mr. Verrilli for his inability to sell that bizarre argument. We do blame Barack Obama and Eric Holder for trying to assert it.

Of course, what is going on here is that the Obama administration doesn’t want to enforce the immigration laws that Congress has enacted. The essence of its position in the Arizona case is that the federal government has the right to decide not to enforce the law, and if it so decides, then no state has the power, under the Constitution, to do anything that would tend to enforce those federal laws. So if the Obama administration decides that it will gain political advantage by ignoring federal laws against illegal immigration, states like Arizona just have to take the consequences without complaining

That proposition–the real essence of the Obama administration’s case–is not one that can survive the light of day. Thus, near the end of Verrilli’s argument, Justice Kennedy cut to the chase:

JUSTICE KENNEDY: So you’re saying the government has a legitimate interest in not enforcing its laws?

GENERAL VERRILLI: No. We have a legitimate interest in enforcing the law, of course, but it needs to be — but these — this Court has said over and over again, has recognized that the — the balance of interest that has to be achieved in enforcing the — the immigration laws is exceedingly delicate and complex, and it involves consideration of foreign relations, it involves humanitarian concerns, and it also involves public order and public –

That answer was incoherent, obviously, but not because Verrilli is a fool; rather, because the Obama administration’s position is indefensible."

A Bad Day In Court for the Obama Administration | Power Line

I almost feel sorry for the guy. This Administration and the democrats have put him in an indefensible position.

 

[Darkwind]

Senator Charles Schumer of New York said his measure will make clear that Congress doesn’t intend for states to enact their own immigration enforcement strategies. He said it will allow states to apprehend suspected illegal immigrants only as part of an agreement overseen by the federal government.

“States like Arizona and Alabama will no longer be able to get away with saying they are simply helping the federal government to enforce the law,” he said during a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing on state and local enforcement of immigration laws. Those states are “writing their own laws and knowingly deploying untrained officers with a mission of arresting anyone and everyone who might fit the preconceived profile of an illegal immigrant,” he said.

Schumer Drafts Bill to Block Arizona Immigration Crackdown - Businessweek

True.

This attack of the Constitution and individual liberty was initiated by the radical right, conservatives shouldn’t be surprised when defenders of the Constitution and its case law fight back.

Are you talking about the same Chuck-yu Schummer? From NY?

 

[Clementine]

"And now, New York Senator Charles Schumer, Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, and the Democrats are threatening to force a floor vote on legislation that would invalidate the Arizona law if it is upheld by the highest court in the land.

Well, Chucky, go for it."


Dems Vow to Kill AZ Immigration Law?...GO FOR IT. - San Francisco Immigration | Examiner.com

good for chuck... it won't pass because the repubs will block it.

but that's ok... it reminds hispanic voters what the right thinks of them... you know, while they try to use rubio to bridge a 70 point gap. *shrug*

Great example of how the left groups people based on ethnicity and race and fails to see individuals.

Hispanic citizens are not illegal aliens. It's wrong to assume that because many citizens want laws enforced that it reflects on their feelings toward our fellow Americans. Many citizens, who happen to be Hispanic, are in favor of protecting our borders and upholding laws.

Legal immigrants came here by following the procedure and they are proud to be Americans. Many aren't so fond of those who did things the wrong way by simply taking a short cut and getting rewarded for it.

 

[saveliberty]

I don't get why Hispanic voters would want to hurt themselves and fellow Americans by supporting illegal immigrants.