If this goes before the Supreme Court, do you think these people would judge this case with the Constitution in mind?
The false argument is that the laws will target LEGAL aliens.
The political correctness says that people who don’t want illegals are racist.
La RAZA – the RACE – look at the symbol. If a white person created a group for the advancement of the WHITE race, then they would be called NAZI’s. What is the difference? This group should be disband post haste.
The PC argument is a LIE to the White people. It’s a TOOL thats used to stifle speech. It causes racial wars.
Lets start talking TRUTH.
The laws should be EQUAL for all. But ILLEGAL is ILLEGAL
Judge Blocks Key Parts of Immigration Law in Arizona:
Published: July 28, 2010
PHOENIX — A federal judge, ruling on a clash between the federal government and a state over immigration policy, has blocked the most controversial parts of Arizona’s immigration enforcement law from going into effect.
In a ruling on a law that has rocked politics coast to coast and thrown a spotlight on the border state’s fierce debate over immigration, United States District Court Judge Susan Bolton in Phoenix said some aspects of the law can go into effect as scheduled on Thursday.
But Judge Bolton took aim at the parts of the law that have generated the most controversy, issuing a preliminary injunction against sections that called for officers to check a person’s immigration status while enforcing other laws and that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times.
Judge Bolton put those sections on hold while she continues to hear the larger issues in the challenges to the law.
“Preserving the status quo through a preliminary injunction is less harmful than allowing state laws that are likely preempted by federal law to be enforced,” she said.
“There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens,” she wrote. “By enforcing this statute, Arizona would impose a ‘distinct, unusual and extraordinary’ burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose.”
The judge’s decision, which came as demonstrators opposed and supporting the law gathered here and after three hearings in the past two weeks in which she peppered lawyers on both sides with skeptical questions, seemed unlikely to quell the debate.
Just as the law has fueled rhetoric on the campaign trail, Judge Bolton’s ruling seemed destined to do the same, with Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, an opponent of the law and a potential rival in a campaign for governor against her, quick to praise the ruling and condemn Ms. Brewer.
“Rather than providing the leadership Arizona needs to solve the immigration problem,Jan Brewer signed a bill she could not defend in court which has led to boycotts, jeopardized our tourism industry and polarized our state,” he said.
Ms. Brewer was traveling in Tucson but was preparing a comment of her own.
The ruling came four days before 1,200 National Guard troops are to report to the Southwest border to assist federal and local law enforcement agencies there, part of the Obama administration’s response to growing anxiety over the border and immigration that has fed support for the law.
Lawyers for Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican who signed the law and is campaigning on it for election, were expected to appeal, and legal experts predict the case is bound for the United States Supreme Court.
The law, adopted in April, was aimed at discouraging illegal immigrants from entering or remaining in the state.
It coincided with economic anxiety and followed a number of high-profile crimes attributed to illegal immigrants and smuggling, though federal data suggests crime is falling in Arizona, as it is nationally, despite a surge of immigration.
Seven lawsuits have been filed against the law, challenging its constitutionality and alleging it will lead to racial profiling.
It also lead to mass demonstrations in Phoenix, for and against it, and a national campaign by civil rights groups to boycott the state.
The Mexican government warned its citizens about traveling to the state and filed a brief in court supporting the lawsuits. Its human rights commission was sending inspectors to the border in anticipation of an escalation in deportations.
But the law also has attracted support, with polls showing a majority of Americans support the notion of local police assisting in federal immigration enforcement.
The Obama administration struggled to respond. After the law was adopted it defended its handling of the border and immigration while urging Congress to enact a sweeping change in immigration law.
Judge Bolton conducted three hearings on the lawsuits.
Justice Department lawyers argued the state law amounted to regulation of immigration, the exclusive authority of the federal government. They said the law goes too far in requiring local police to make immigration checks and that federal agencies would be overwhelmed in responding to the requests.
In addition, they argued that the law could lead to harassment of legal residents and citizens who fell under suspicion by the police and could damage relations with Mexico and other countries the United States relies on for cooperation with law enforcement and other matters.
Judge Bolton at times did not sound open to the federal government’s arguments.
“Why can’t Arizona be as inhospitable as they wish to people who have entered or remained in the United States?” she asked Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler last week.
“It is not for one of our states to be inhospitable in the way this statute does,” he replied, echoing arguments from other lawyers who have warned against a patchwork of state and local immigration laws.
At another point, she asked, “Where is the preemption if everybody who is arrested for some crime has their immigration status checked?”
She suggested the immigration agency could simply refuse to pick up someone referred by the police, a tact federal officials have hinted could be their response if the law goes forward. But she seemed reluctant to accept that local police making the inquiry intruded on federal authority.
John Bouma, a lawyer for the state, said the law closely hews to federal statutes and follows the intent of Congress to give states a role in enforcing immigration laws.
He said Arizona was being irreparably harmed by the flow of immigration across the border — more people are apprehended crossing the border in Arizona than any other state — and the state should not be penalized for stepping in where the federal government has not.
“The status quo is simply unacceptable,” he said.
But Judge Bolton seemed flustered by vague wording in the law and questioned, among other things, if people arrested for any crime would be detained for unusually long periods while their immigration status was being determined, as the law requires.
She also questioned whether local police could arrest somebody without a warrant if they believe they have commited a deportable offense. Determining who gets deported is typically left to a judge.
- In 1980, our federal and state prisons housed fewer than 9,000 criminal aliens. By the end of 1999, these same prisons housed over 68,000 criminal aliens. Today, criminal aliens account for over 29 percent of prisoners in Federal Bureau of Prisons facilities and a higher share of all federal prison inmates. These prisoners represent the fastest growing segment of the federal prison population.-immmigrationprocon.com
- Percent of people who want national guard on border
Favor % 64
Oppose % 32
Unsure % 4
- Twelve Americans are murdered every day by illegal aliens, according to statistics released by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa. If those numbers are correct, it translates to 4,380 Americans murdered annually by illegal aliens. That’s 21,900 since Sept. 11, 2001. –world net daily
- Illegal immigrants don’t have any right to be here
- 3% of Illegal Aliens Do Low-Paid Stoop Agricultural Labor;
the Remaining 97% Take Jobs That Americans Want and Need
- Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household.
- Among the largest costs are Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion).
- With nearly two-thirds of illegal aliens lacking a high school degree, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments, not their legal status or heavy use of most social services.
- On average, the costs that illegal households impose on federal coffers are less than half that of other households, but their tax payments are only one-fourth that of other households.
- Many of the costs associated with illegals are due to their American-born children, who are awarded U.S. citizenship at birth. Thus, greater efforts at barring illegals from federal programs will not reduce costs because their citizen children can continue to access them
- If illegal aliens were given amnesty and began to pay taxes and use services like households headed by legal immigrants with the same education levels, the estimated annual net fiscal deficit would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total net cost of $29 billion.
- Costs increase dramatically because unskilled immigrants with legal status — what most illegal aliens would become — can access government programs, but still tend to make very modest tax payments.
- Although legalization would increase average tax payments by 77 percent, average costs would rise by 118 percent.-CIS
- 2000 miles of non patrolled border
- 44 % want fence across border- globalsecurity.com
- 21,352,481 illegal aliens in America
- $397,444,427,252 Cost of Social Services for Illegal Immigrants Since 1996 –http://immigrationcounters.com/
- children of illegals in school 4,258,356
- Cost of Illegals in K-12 Since 1996 $13,784,719,088
- Center for immigration studies.- cis.org
- Immigrationprocon.org- Richard Freeman professor at Harvard university
- Randy Neugebauer, U.S. Representative (R-TX)
- Amesty international-amnestyusa.com