Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Supreme Court Smackdown On Brit, Obama, and Olde

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Supreme Court Smackdown On Brit, Obama, and Olde

    Arizona can punish those who hire illegals!

    LOL. Total and complete fail for illegal aliens and their supporters.

  • #2
    Arizona can punish those who hire illegals!

    LOL. Total and complete fail for illegal aliens and their supporters.

    Comment


    • #3
      That's essentially all that needs done to apply the brakes to the illegal tide. Without a job to come to, there isn't much reason for hanging around or making the trip in the first place.

      I'd expect a flood of similar legislation from many states with it being supported by the Supreme Court. That and much hand wringing with accusations of the court being racist, bigoted, and what ever other names la raza can recklessly come up with. I wouldn't be at all surprised if certain posters made similar pronouncements.
      This message brought to you by the vast right wing conspiracy.

      Comment


      • #4
        GREAT NEWS!!! thanks you for posting Federale86. Go Arizona!!! Go Jan Brewer!!! Go Sheriff Joe!!! Have a wonderful Memorial Day weekend.

        Comment


        • #5
          <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by federale86:
          Arizona can punish those who hire illegals!

          LOL. Total and complete fail for illegal aliens and their supporters.
          </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

          U fool, the ruling is backed 5-3, it has at least one of so called "Liberal" Justices (to the left of the current SCOTUS Center represented by A.Kennedy ) voting for it.
          And, most likely, Anthony Kennedy joined majority or abstained and didn't vote against (the very same Justice who ruled on separate case against detention and deportation of "collaterally" detained in raids individuals , in absence of any probable cause. You have now SCOTUS granted right to remain silent if asked by any federal agent of your immigration status).

          The ruling you refer to clearly says that Arizona doesn't trample or conflict with Federal regulations because it merely mirrors the Federal guidelines and relies on very Federal database to determine eligibility of workers to do the job they are hired to do.

          That's a HUUUUUUUGE distance away from endorsing deputies of Arpaio to racially profile , detain and abuse anyone they wish to , just because someone "looks like an illegal" (try hard to define first what it means to "look like an illegal").



          davdah, read the SCOTUS ruling first, then the article about it. This is a separate case, has nothing to do with SB 1070, it merely requires businesses in State of AZ to UNIFORMLY check through Federally available E-Verify database EVERYONE who is being hired and only targets those businesses who FAIL to comply with regulations put in place by the Federal govt.
          That's not the same as jumping on the "illegal looking" guy on the street, handcuffing and jailing and turning over to ICE the same, ONLY for ICE to set the individual free after confirming the authenticity of US issued Birth Certificate.
          http://www.anbsoft.com/images/usflag_med.jpg

          "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit

          Comment


          • #6
            sorry, I meant to write ''thank''. I'm getting ready for the long weekend so I'm in a rush.

            Comment


            • #7
              I don't think this gives Ole Joe consent to roust the barrio. The primary motivation for crossing the border without consent is work. Take that away and so goes the desire to take the chance. Stay tuned for further developments. This is the crackdown being made an incremental process of implementation. So much for Obama being the illegal's buddy
              This message brought to you by the vast right wing conspiracy.

              Comment


              • #8
                Hardly a smackdown. It simply mirrors existing Federal law. Kinda pointless exercise really. All it does is make Jan Brewer and her fellow cronies feel good about themselves.
                "What you see in the photograph isn't what you saw at the time. The real skill of photography is organized visual lying."

                Comment


                • #9
                  Pointless? There was no law requiring E-verify before this. Now they must run the identity check on new hires. I didn't read the entire bill to see if it entails checking on existing employees but I would guess it doesn't since E-verify by it's user guide states it's not to be used to check after the fact. This is a huge step and will be infinitely more effective than anything Joe could ever have hoped to accomplish.
                  This message brought to you by the vast right wing conspiracy.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
                    I don't think this gives Ole Joe consent to roust the barrio. The primary motivation for crossing the border without consent is work. Take that away and so goes the desire to take the chance. Stay tuned for further developments. This is the crackdown being made an incremental process of implementation. So much for Obama being the illegal's buddy </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                    1. The idea of "take the jobs away and magic will happen" is cooked up in the plushy seated, comfortable cabinets of center of immigration studies and related non-profs. Those guys should be writing novels, like Tolkien, but no, they all imagine to be perfect experts until their ideas end up in practical fiasco decades and many victims later.

                    To have a true knowledge and comprehension of what motivates 11 million illegals is a task that is ultimately beyond possible due to the large variations of individual motives of such a large group of people whose only common trait is being in US without proper documentation.

                    But even if you tried to pick the statistically largest group that had at least some similarities based on which you could device a motivational strategy , so you could the target as a biggest chunk to be removed, you would still need more than being an eye doctor , driving through downtown maim street and seeing only a mass of dark skinned people looking for a job. You would at very least need to step down from your car or pick up truck and stand there, right next to those guys, and live at least few years in their shoes. Even better if you can go to Mexico, start there and move all the way across border here, get to some major hub where most end up and see for yourself what truly motivates you to do things as you wake up , go to work or just live your life , day to day , away from where you came from and unwilling to return.

                    I venture to say this again: the majority of those who are here are here due to "push factor" (getting away from country of origin) rather than "pull factor" (coming here to work slave shifts, 12 hours a day, with gas prices and housing costs making $10 an hour today less than 1/5 of its' worth 15-20 years ago).That there is an opportunity to make some dough in the US is secondary , as a sort of luxury, as opposed to necessity to get out of where many come from (and many among them are those who do not come from cow milking or ballooned from starvation background and have it harder way getting paid in US than they had to do where they came from). Those who are here will not return if jobs are removed.

                    The only way to remove 11 mil or 20 mils is to do it the way Eisenhower did: run it as a military operation, remove the agents and local law enforcement currently present on border states who may not be too earnestly performing their tasks, put people with military discipline on the border and interior and just go from house to house, 10000-20000 agents per months (each agent with a quota of at least 3 illegal alien arestees per day) , per State, from one State to the next, relentlessly and ultimately removing every single alien who is apprehended and can not produce ultimate proof of legal status in US. This visible mass exodus will then instill a panic and cause massive fleeing across the Southern border , like you would route an army in a battle field. That is the only practical way to achieve mass deportation ( and i think, eventually this is the way it will be done under one of the next post-Obama administrations), the rest is f.airy tales for Tolkien readers who better smoke a pipe than meddle in creating blueprints for a solution of a problem they have no clue about.


                    The right way , of course, would be not to treat these entire population as if they were just so many Helots , instead have a comprehensive approach , separating those who must be deported from those who should be allowed to apply for some for of relief, but practically speaking , it's the mood of the day that always decides such issues therefore i don't see it will be done any other way than the way Eisenhower did it in 1954.
                    Anywho, it is not there yet. And these silly 'remove jobs and do magic' talk is that of silly dilettantes. I find it odd how do they buy people like you, who seem to have more practical sense to know better.


                    2. As to Obama, only the most stupid and naive could have thought that he would be in power or in a position to do anything practically or exerting an energetic executive policy making force to bring changes he promised.
                    Obama is non-confrontationalPresident whose primary goal from day one was to do nothing or as little as possible for his core constituents that elected him, while trying to somehow please those who are political opponents of the party on whose ticket he was elected.
                    I think his main goal is to avoid any sort of controversy and confrontation at all costs possible. This doesn't translate to being energetic advocate of measures that would raise the ire of very people he is too apprehensive to make angry.

                    But still, it is much better than what will happen after his administration is gone.
                    Under Napolitano his immigration agencies at least issued memos instructing do dismiss deportation cases of people in removal proceedings who are eligible for adjustment of status and one can easily envision how would it all be run had there been Joe Arpaio or Brewer in charge , as opposed to Obama appointees.
                    http://www.anbsoft.com/images/usflag_med.jpg

                    "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      LOL, Olde moron and Brit were claiming that a defeat of mandatory E-verify would end the anti-illegal tide.

                      Now that they are defeated, they say it means nothing.

                      And, Olde moron, there is nothing in SB1070 that says the police may abuse or profile people based on how they look.

                      You commie leftists are certainly desperate in your lies.

                      Oh, and Olde moron, Kennedy voted and he voted with the majority. He did not decline to vote.

                      And even if Kagan had voted, it would have been 5-4. I guess you just can't count.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        The problem with that sort of approach is it invites a more aggressive disobedience from the next wave of would be law breakers.

                        When Reagan declared an amnesty, that sounded a trumpet that our laws could be broken without penalty. As a matter of fact. It announced a reward for doing so. Now we have 10 times the problem. The worlds population didn't swell by that same factor. It was this singular act that created the stampede with an expected unimpeded response.

                        Agree, disagree, or be clueless to the scope and purpose of permitted immigration, there is no need to walk in someone's shoes nor live in their country. It's our laws and country we need think of and what's best for it. We already know why the majority are here. Without employment, most will not be able to sustain themselves for very long. That is why this will be a monumental success.

                        This is exactly what I spoke to a year or two back as a way to enforce with the least amount of cost and resistance. The other items I wanted introduced will take some time such as blending the DMV photographic records with E-verify to create an easy to use and nearly fail safe identification system. The third prong would be synchronizing the state and federal employment tax collection databases to ferret out the remainder through computerized forensic accounting techniques.

                        Looking over the events that have occurred over the past few years one that stands out is the number of work related raids. The focus is changing and narrowing on the last element of refusal. Those employers who won't comply. They'll get flagged easy enough when tax records fall outside the scope of expected production costs and their reported revenues. From there a visit will be made. The rest is academic.
                        This message brought to you by the vast right wing conspiracy.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by federale86:
                          LOL, Olde moron and Brit were claiming that a defeat of mandatory E-verify would end the anti-illegal tide. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                          I don't know what Brit claimed in past ( he is Tea Partyist, for all i can tell) , but copy paste at least one post of mine where i said defeat of mandatory E-verify would end the anti-illegal tide.
                          If you don't copy paste at least one post where i claimed the same that would, obviously, make you a liar.

                          <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
                          And, Olde moron, there is nothing in SB1070 that says the police may abuse or profile people based on how they look. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                          And just how, based on what 'probable cause' are they going to approach someone and question about immigration status under SB 1070?

                          <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
                          You commie leftists are certainly desperate in your lies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                          If you really want to know what really meant to be part of a minority and persecuted by a Bolshevik and Commie Leftist propaganda in a country that you, moron, don't have a clue about, then simply go to one of the sites that are run by a network of John Tanton affiliated non-profs. You will quickly get your lesson.

                          <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
                          Oh, and Olde moron, Kennedy voted and he voted with the majority. He did not decline to vote. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                          I didn't say he declined to vote.
                          Seeing 8-3 (and knowing SCOTUS consists of 9 Justices, but not knowing that Kagan was solicitor for admin. in this case and thus couldn't vote ) i suggested that Kennedy most likely...joined majority or abstained and didn't vote..
                          To say "most likely joined majority" hardly makes me a moron, considering the fact that he did what i suggested he had done.

                          <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
                          And even if Kagan had voted, it would have been 5-4. I guess you just can't count.
                          </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                          And i didn't dispute that. Did you see me implying that having 4 votes against 5 would reverse the outcome?
                          I don't know if you are a moron (you could well be, but then one never knows if you are just clowning around), but it is indisputable that your language comprehension skills are far from allowing you to read and properly understand even the simplest of sentences written in English.

                          But then, what else one should expect from one who voices opinions akin those you post here.
                          http://www.anbsoft.com/images/usflag_med.jpg

                          "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NO AMNESTY!!!:
                            sorry, I meant to write ''thank''. I'm getting ready for the long weekend so I'm in a rush. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                            You can edit your original post on this forum, you know? In any case, I'm going to be nice and wish you and everyone else a nice weekend as well.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
                              The problem with that sort of approach is it invites a more aggressive disobedience from the next wave of would be law breakers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                              Davdah, this another big BS you are brainwashed to believe in by minions of Tanton.

                              <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
                              When Reagan declared an amnesty, that sounded a trumpet that our laws could be broken without penalty. As a matter of fact. It announced a reward for doing so. Now we have 10 times the problem. The worlds population didn't swell by that same factor. It was this singular act that created the stampede with an expected unimpeded response. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                              As i said above, it's just one of the myths not supported by facts.

                              Number one, if you do a little research and read old articles about waiting times vs quotas you will see that as late as 1990 (4 years after TOTAL amnesty declared by Reagan) most of the categories were going unfilled. Not only there were no waiting times for relatives of LPR or those sponsored for PR under employment categories , but even H1b's coming to US (that went through the roof in late 90's) were so rare that INS approved the petitions when the undergrad educational field had nothing to do with sponsored position (just as if US citizen was applying for a job, graduating in one and working in totally different field).
                              Then came early nineties and hell broke loose.

                              If you look objectively at WHAT really caused the floodgates of immigration to open, you will see the 2 major occurrences (that had nothing to do with 1986 reform) and the consequences of the same:

                              1. USSR disintegrated. With it an entire Eastern Block countries decided to drop the Iron Curtain. Millions upon millions left dozens of formerly Warshaw Pact (or W.P.) countries and many ended up here in US for various reasons and under various visa categories and statuses.

                              2. #1 by and in itself wouldn't cause the migrational tsunami if it was not for the ripple effect of economic collapses caused in many third world non-Warshaw pact countries by the #1.

                              However, with the collapse of W.P. there also was a collapse of welfare support for dozens of the poor countries all over the world that produced almost nothing and lived solely on dotations provided by Soviet block as means of creating a global geopolitical alliance against United States.

                              3. With threat of SU removed and new markets open for investment , free trade provided many opportunities for successful enterprises to move to newly opened areas that were off-limits in past. But it also created the effect of mass displacements (as in Mexico for instance) , which further exasperated already alarming rates of migration.

                              4. Add to this very rapidly growing US economy that, despite Congress enacting in 1996 draconian laws against illegal immigration, had forced the executive branch to literally close eyes and look in other direction as increasing waves of undocumented people were crossing the border and coming here to work in menial jobs. Booming construction industry , last of great number of labor force consumers , certainly didn't contribute to making things any better in terms of encouraging more enforcement at the Border.

                              All the above factors (and probably some more that i missed or didn't list) were a MAJOR and REAL reason for unprecedented scale of immigration. It was NOT a consequence of 1986 reform, rather it was consequence of the radical geopolitical changes that took place immediately prior and during that high (and already passed) wave of latest mass migrations.

                              It is contrary to amassed evidence to blame 1986 reform for the consequences of events that took place at least 4-6 years later.


                              <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
                              Agree, disagree, or be clueless to the scope and purpose of permitted immigration, there is no need to walk in someone's shoes nor live in their country. It's our laws and country we need think of and what's best for it. We already know why the majority are here. Without employment, most will not be able to sustain themselves for very long. That is why this will be a monumental success. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                              You don't have to walk in somebody's shoes if you don't want to. No John Lennon songs here. I don't ask for your condescending compassion towards millions whom you chose to regard as mere helots.

                              But if you step on that soap box and proclaim yourself an expert in knowing what sort of thing will motivate such and such group of people to act one or another way, well, in such case there is no way around and before claiming or having a knowledge of subject you have no choice but to thoroughly study it. There is no other way to study the motivation of people than to actually experience what they experience so you can start thinking and feeling like they do and consequently be aware of their true motivations (as opposed to writing fantastic f.airy tale novels like those of Tolkien).
                              And thAt requires nothing less than walking on the shoes of those on whose behavior and motivation you want to lay a claim of expertise.

                              As to employment, you are very wrong about it, many will be able to sustain even without it.
                              Some (the most cautious or elderly or those having the best family support) will simply be taken care of by their close relatives or friends.

                              Others (especially the youth, younger generation and those who have never seen a life other than as scorned outcasts ) will form street gangs and resort to violence, theft and all kind of organized criminal activity. With Supreme Court ordering California to free 30000 criminals due to lack of resources to fund prisons, think where will the funds come to imprison ever growing number of hardened criminals (these won't be meek day laborers or family fathers or mothers who just agreeably stretch hands to be shackled and cry days and nights about tragedy of separation or broken dreams. These will be young kids or men with 45 caliber shotguns, with too little to lose and ready to unload bullets on anyone just to get whatever it takes to survive.

                              This will not be a monumental success, If anything, this will be a monumental tragedy and will just contribute to creation of public fear and apprehension and, subsequently, public support for radical measures that currently do not get implemented due to lack of sufficient public support.

                              At such time you may expect the "Operation Kick A.ss" , with rapid removal of millions, in a matter of a year or so.

                              Very , very sad and incompetent way to manage the crisis the way that brings it to such critical point where those radical measures will be necessiated. But, with rational thinking being flushed down the toilet and willful denial of facts this is very much the kind of perspective we are looking at . And once all said and done you will be among those responsible for being a part of contributing to it.



                              <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
                              This is exactly what I spoke to a year or two back as a way to enforce with the least amount of cost and resistance. The other items I wanted introduced will take some time such as blending the DMV photographic records with E-verify to create an easy to use and nearly fail safe identification system. The third prong would be synchronizing the state and federal employment tax collection databases to ferret out the remainder through computerized forensic accounting techniques.

                              Looking over the events that have occurred over the past few years one that stands out is the number of work related raids. The focus is changing and narrowing on the last element of refusal. Those employers who won't comply. They'll get flagged easy enough when tax records fall outside the scope of expected production costs and their reported revenues. From there a visit will be made. The rest is academic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                              "Attrition through enforcement" is not something 2 years old theory and is not something you came up with. It is something that center for immigration studies was mulling about as far back as i remember.

                              Initially, as i remember, they came up with this 'attrition through enforcement' theory because they figured it would be too embarrassing and lacking of public support if you resorted to creating an "Exodus of Biblical proportions" (exact quote used by one of center's 'think tanks' in one of interviews where he was elatedly explaining what a brilliant 'go around' they devised to get things done without doing anything too visible).
                              So, they said, let's just tighten the bolts in increments, nobody will notice but effect , over long term , will be the same as if you unleashed a tornado of enforcement officers looking looking for illegals with a flashlight under every bed in existence.

                              Bush administration ignored those silly theories for years, pushed instead for comprehensive immigration reform ,and when latter failed, in typical for Bush administration, energetic and forceful manner, decided to resort to mass raids.

                              It wasn't until Obama administration came to office that the blueprint of 'enforcement through attrition' became part of what inspires execution of immigration enforcement.

                              I know Janet Napolitano, i remember her as governor of AZ, not just her speeches but most importantly her strong willed actions, i know this is not something she would do if it was up to her to come up with the enforcement strategy.

                              For whatever reason current administration decided to go along with the proponents of the 'attrition through enforcement' theory. I do not know whether they do it to prove in practice how it won't work, or whether it is done because the administration does not wish to confront extremely vocal and forceful proponents of this born out of nerds mind theory.

                              But what i find most relevant is the fact that for the time since the ideas of these 'attrition through enforcement theory' think tanks were implemented, there is no indication of any of what they propose working.

                              Are record number of illegals being detained and deported as we speak? Sure yes!
                              Are the administration policies gradually tightening the bolts and implementing in practice the prescribed by center for immigration studies 'medicine' and course of treatment? Absolutely yes!

                              Do we see millions , nay hundreds, nay, tens of thousands at least running across the border to the South?

                              I leave those with any iota of sense and awareness of reality to answer this question on their own.

                              As i mentioned numerous times, nothing short of military style total removal operation can cause the mass departure of 10+ millions of immigrants.
                              But public opinion is not ripe for such measures just yet.

                              On the other hand, nerdy 'think tanks' won't allow for any rational or comprehensive solution to become a law. Just imagine being a Senator and having your phones ring 10000 times a day , with angry and threatening voices of a group of crazed fanatics controlled and ordered to make those calls by well known to all of us Tanton related non-profs.
                              If i was a Senator, i too would be scared for my life to vote in support of rational solution i believed in.
                              Hence even McCain speaking loudly and denouncing himself for ever supporting sensible solution to the problem.

                              So, what we have at hand is course of events as usual.
                              http://www.anbsoft.com/images/usflag_med.jpg

                              "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit

                              Comment



                              Working...
                              X