Arizona Illegal-Immigrant Law

[FootballDad]

The trial phase takes months, as it moves up to the appeals court and then eventually to the SCOTUS docket, which then can take a year (from now) until it is heard. It's absurd. According to Judge Bolton's logic, when the State Trooper in Oklahoma arrested Timothy McVie after pulling him over for a speeding violation, it would have been an illegal arrest and McVie would have walked free, since the Oklahoma City bombing was a federal crime.

 

[white lightning]

There have been many arrests today. Protests everywhere. They are sending in hundreds of latinos and latinas on buses to AZ. Over 30 have been arrested. Blocking streets, and blocking the city jail. This has only just begun. Imagine how mad they would be if the law had actually started. It's growing to a boiling point.

 

[DixieDestroyer]

There have been many arrests today. Protests everywhere. They are sending in hundreds of latinos and latinas on buses to AZ. Over 30 have been arrested. Blocking streets, and blocking the city jail. This has only just begun. Imagine how mad they would be if the law had actually started. It's growing to a boiling point.

Das untermenschen keep pushing their luck in the (once) White man's Republic. Maybe some "White men" will re-attach their nards, turn off the TalmudVision & stand for the sovereignty our forefathers provided.

The Amnesty Memo

July 29, 2010 5:30 PM
By Robert VerBruggen

According to an internal U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services memo going the rounds of Capitol Hill and obtained by National Review, the agency is considering ways in which it could enact "meaningful immigration reform absent legislative action" Ã¢â‚¬" that is, without the consent of the American people through a vote in Congress.

"This memorandum offers administrative relief options to . . . reduce the threat of removal for certain individuals present in the United States without authorization,"Â it reads.

Also: "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 (NTA), and adopting significant process improvements."Â

In recent weeks, Sen. Chuck Grassley and others in Congress have been pressing the administration to disavow rumors that a de facto amnesty is in the works, including in a letter to Department of Homeland Security head Janet Napolitano. "Since the senators first wrote to the president more than a month ago, we have not been reassured that the plans are just rumors, and we have every reason to believe that the memo is legitimate,"Â a Grassley spokesman tells NR. (NR contacted DHS, but a spokesman did not have a comment on the record.)

Many of the memo's proposals are technical and fine-grained; for example, it suggests clarifying the immigration laws for "unaccompanied minors, and for victims of human trafficking, domestic violence, and other criminal activities."Â It also proposes extending the "grace period"Â H-1B visa holders have between the expiration of their visa and the date they're expected to leave the country.

With other ideas, however, USCIS is aiming big. Perhaps the most egregious suggestion is to "Increase the Use of Deferred Action."Â "Deferred action,"Â as the memo defines it, "is an exercise of prosecutorial discretion not to pursue removal from the U.S. of a particular individual for a specific period of time."Â For example, after Hurricane Katrina, the government decided not to remove illegal immigrants who'd been affected by the disaster.

The memo claims that there are no limits to USCIS's ability to use deferred action, but warns that using this power indiscriminately would be "controversial, not to mention expensive." The memo suggests using deferred action to exempt "particular groups" from removal â€" such as the illegal-immigrant high-school graduates who would fall under the DREAM Act (a measure that has been shot down repeatedly in Congress). The memo claims that the DREAM Act would cover "an estimated 50,000" individuals, though as many as 65,000 illegal immigrants graduate high school every year in the U.S.

In the immediate wake of the court decision blocking the Arizona immigration law yesterday, the memo is sure to create controversy â€" and the sense that the administration is bent on preserving and extending the nation's de facto amnesty.

UPDATE: USCIS has released a statement on the memo:

Internal draft memos do not and should not be equated with official action or policy of the Department. We will not comment on notional, pre-decisional memos. As a matter of good government, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will discuss just about every issue that comes within the purview of the immigration system. We continue to maintain that comprehensive bipartisan legislation, coupled with smart, effective enforcement, is the only solution to our nation's immigration challenges.

Internal memoranda help us do the thinking that leads to important changes; some of them are adopted and others are rejected. Our goal is to implement policies wisely and well to strengthen all aspects of our mission. The choices we have made so far have strengthened both the enforcement and services sides of USCIS â€" nobody should mistake deliberation and exchange of ideas for final decisions. To be clear, DHS will not grant deferred action or humanitarian parole to the nation's entire illegal immigrant population.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/233793/amnesty-memo-robert-verbruggen

Edited by: DixieDestroyer

 

[Jimmy Chitwood]

stay safe out there, white lightning. and stay strong.

 

[Bart]

VDare on the Arizona Immigration Ruling

http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/jamesedwards/2010/07/29/vdare-on-the-az-immigration-ruling/

Peter Brimelow came to our defense on Wednesday. Then, his website releases this exquisite article on Thursday.

Showing complete disregard for the constitution, the rule of law, the democratic will of the people of Arizona, Clinton appointee Susan Bolton issued an injunction against the major aspects of Arizona's law in federal district court. The Arizona Daily Star summarized the blocked provisions:

1) Requiring a police officer to make a reasonable attempt to check the immigration status of those they have stopped

2) Forbidding police from releasing anyone they have arrested until that person's immigration status is determined

3) Making it a violation of Arizona law for anyone not a citizen to fail to carry documentation

4) Creating a new state crime for trying to secure work while not a legal resident

5) Allowing police to make warrantless arrests if there is a belief the person has committed an offense that allows them to be removed from the United States

(snip)Edited by: Bart

 

[Bart]

VDare on the Arizona Immigration Ruling

http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/jamesedwards/2010/07/29/vdare-on-the-az-immigration-ruling/

Peter Brimelow came to our defense on Wednesday. Then, his website releases this exquisite article on Thursday.

Showing complete disregard for the constitution, the rule of law, the democratic will of the people of Arizona, Clinton appointee Susan Bolton issued an injunction against the major aspects of Arizona's law in federal district court. The Arizona Daily Star summarized the blocked provisions:

1) Requiring a police officer to make a reasonable attempt to check the immigration status of those they have stopped

2) Forbidding police from releasing anyone they have arrested until that person's immigration status is determined

3) Making it a violation of Arizona law for anyone not a citizen to fail to carry documentation

4) Creating a new state crime for trying to secure work while not a legal resident

5) Allowing police to make warrantless arrests if there is a belief the person has committed an offense that allows them to be removed from the United States

(snip)

But Susan Bolton knows that if she is ever to be nominated to a higher court, it will be done by a Democrat. She also knows that no Democrat would appoint her if she had the gall to uphold SB 1070. (snip)Edited by: Bart

 

[Westside]

What is striking about this is the President and FEDS are basically telling the Peaple of Arizona that "we don't give a flying F if your suffering from the illegal invaders from Mexico physically or financially. We are not going to our job in protecting the border. We need them Mexicans as a future block of voters. What don't you get about our plans!"

Thanks dumb white people who voted for BO and his co conspirators in 2008. We are now saddled with this tyranny and have to defeat it in 2010, and finish the job in 2012.

 

[Europe]

What is striking about this is the President and FEDS are basically telling the Peaple of Arizona that "we don't give a flying F if your suffering from the illegal invaders from Mexico physically or financially. We are not going to our job in protecting the border. We need them Mexicans as a future block of voters. What don't you get about our plans!"

Thanks dumb white people who voted for BO and his co conspirators in 2008. We are now saddled with this tyranny and have to defeat it in 2010, and finish the job in 2012.

I hate the Democrats too,but what did Bush do about it? If Bush could have gotten Amnesty through, he would have signed it, wouldn't he? Is Lindsey Graham any better? Yes,there are some good Repubs like Tancredo,but are they enough? I don't recall Bush giving any type of serious speech on illegal immigration or legal immigration, maybe I am wrong. Bush signed a law to let in more foreign baseball players , so they are about half of the minor leagues. I highly doubt a Republican will do much about immigration unfortunaley. I would vote for anybody that cuts it off totally,but it's not going to happen.

 

[Westside]

Europe most of your post is correct. But today many things are coming to a head at the same time. The majority of the states are going broke and most people are getting pissed about illegals getting free healthcare and education not to mention friggn free welfare. Enough is enough, and at least the people of Arizona have spoken. The president for all intents and purposes is waging a bloodless war with the citizens of the country. Outrageous.

 

[FootballDad]

Globalist shill GW Bush was a proponent of amnesty for the invaders, as was/is John McCain. Most ruling class, blue blood establishment Republicans are in favor of amnesty in one form or another. So this is not a Democrat vs. Republican issue, it's a ruling class versus the people issue.

 

[Europe]

Europe most of your post is correct. But today many things are coming to a head at the same time. The majority of the states are going broke and most people are getting pissed about illegals getting free healthcare and education not to mention friggn free welfare. Enough is enough, and at least the people of Arizona have spoken. The president for all intents and purposes is waging a bloodless war with the citizens of the country. Outrageous.

I agree. I would kick out all illegals and their "legal" children and cut off immigration totally.

 

[Bart]

Most ruling class, blue blood establishment Republicans are in favor of amnesty in one form or another. So this is not a Democrat vs. Republican issue, it's a ruling class versus the people issue.

Well, yes and no. I agree the leaders of both parties are bought and paid for by the usual suspects and I've cursed them all, BUT the rank and file memberships are - quite - different. The ACLU, Blacks, Jews, Asians, Mestizos, militant homos, feminists, commies, civil rights groups, amnesty advocates, Nambla members, prisoners, gang members, welfare queens, drug dealers etc, etc, are the base of the Democrat Party.

Virtually every time a judge steps in to thwart the will of the people it's a Democrat. We can bank on it. Our courts are loaded with liberal radicals appointed by fellow lefties bent on turning this nation into a third world multicultural freak show.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and now Kagan were all thrust forward by Democrats. Yes, a few Rinos and Neocons did their dirty duty and allowed it to happen but it's almost entirely a Democrat affair.

Who is upset and angered over the Mexican invasion? Who wants deportations and secured borders? On the other hand, who stymies all the efforts of patriots? Not much of a mystery.

 

[DixieDestroyer]

I'm not usually not a fan of cops tazering & whoopin' citizen's @$$es. However, here's a few prime candidates for just such treatment...

http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/local_news/queens/men-run-onto-citi-field-with-mexican-flags-20100731

Edited by: DixieDestroyer

 

[white lightning]

Yeah it's clear how much they love this country. Constantly waving their mexican flags, yelling LaRaza(The Race) and calling for Aztlan. The return of the western united states to mexico. This is their land in their minds despite losing the war and accepting cash for the rest of the land.

 

[DixieDestroyer]

This is obviously window-dressing, but still good to see. If the really wanted to solve this issue, they'd revoke birthright citizenship, end ALL taxpayer subsidies for invaders & their jackpot babies, start levying heavy fines on any/all employers of invaders & not enable them via putting up "day laborer areas" (sans a set-up for ICE). As far as troops, bring them ALL back from the empire building mission in the middle east & put 50K+ troops on the southern border (to stop invaders, coyotes, gangsters & other vermin). Lastly, build a Pacific to Gulf border fence...50' high, w/ razor wire, 24/7/365 surveillance & active troop patrols. The mexcrements do NOT belong here...this is NOT their country!

Timing of National Guard's Deployment to Southwest Border Stirs Confusion, Anger

Published July 31, 2010

| FoxNews.com

A US National Guard vehicle guards covered under camouflage fabric sits atop a mountain next to the border fence near Sonoyta, Mexico, Thursday, July 29, 2010. (AP)

The 1,200 National Guard troops expected to arrive Sunday on the southwest border for reinforcement won't finish deploying until late September, federal officials say, stirring confusion and anger among Arizona lawmakers who thought the deadline was Aug. 1.

President Obama announced in May he would send National Guard troops amid growing concerns about border violence stemming from illegal immigration and drug smuggling. Many called for a military presence along the U.S-Mexico border to assist border patrol agents as Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed a controversial law making illegal immigration a state crime -- a policy that a judge weakened this week in federal court.

Earlier this month, the Department of Homeland Security said the troops would be sent Aug. 1. But now both the National Guard Bureau and the Customs Border Protection says that date was when they were directed to start ramping up their numbers.

Arizona lawmakers shook their heads in disgust.

"This administration seems to promise a lot and then when you get into the fine print, it just doesn't happen," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who has called for 6,000 National Guard troops.

Asked whether he had been briefed on what role the troops would play, McCain said, "We have not been briefed, and we have asked for briefing both in writing and verbally, and the answer is,'we'll get back to you.'"

Homeland Security expressed surprise about the confusion.

"Troops will be there this Sunday as planned," a Homeland Security spokesman said. "This is the beginning deployment stage. There is a ramp-up time and troops will be trained. Nothing has changed in our world."

But the National Guard Bureau in Virginia says the date has been "over interpreted" and they've always had 90 days to reach full deployment across the southern border states.

A spokesperson for the Arizona National Guard said the application process is now beginning.

Arizona officials, including Brewer, said this is yet one more example of the federal government not making border security a top priority.

The National Guard plan has already been criticized by border-state lawmakers as too weak to make a dent in border security challenges and sparked concern that the 1,200 who are deployed would be relegated to desk jobs.

According to the Obama administration, nearly half of the troops will be sent to the volatile Arizona-Mexico border. A total of 524 will be stationed in Arizona, with 250 in Texas, 224 in California and 72 in New Mexico. An additional 130 will serve in "command-and-control" and other support positions.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/31/timing-national-guards-deployment-southwest-border-stirs-confusion-anger/

Edited by: DixieDestroyer

 

[Bart]

This is obviously window-dressing, but still good to see. If the really wanted to solve this issue, they'd revoke birthright citizenship, end ALL taxpayer subsidies for invaders & their jackpot babies, start levying heavy fines on any/all employers of invaders & not enable them via putting up "day laborer areas" (sans a set-up for ICE). As far as troops, bring them ALL back from the empire building mission in the middle east & put 50K+ troops on the southern border (to stop invaders, coyotes, gangsters & other vermin). Lastly, build a Pacific to Gulf border fence...50' high, w/ razor wire, 24/7/365 surveillance & active troop patrols. The mexcrements do NOT belong here...this is NOT their country!

Excellent plan!

 

[Riddlewire]

...put 50K+ troops on the southern border (to stop invaders, coyotes, gangsters & other vermin). Lastly, build a Pacific to Gulf border fence...50' high, w/ razor wire, 24/7/365 surveillance & active troop patrols.

That would be a permanent drain on taxpayer dollars.
I favor one of two "one time" approaches.

#1 ANFO, and plenty of it. Open pit blasting techniques can carve out deep and wide trenches very quickly. Just dig out a canyon from Pacific to Gulf and flood the expanse. The criminals who are already here (all illegal aliens) can earn their freedom (and bus tickets back to Mexico) by carrying the debris out of the blast zone and using it to build a barrier on the U.S. side. Although this method would involve a tremendous intial expense*, it would pay for itself in the benefits it would bring to our nation.

#2 We already possess enormous quantities of nuclear waste that must be stored underground for thousands of years at great expense. This material could be buried shallow in an unbroken line all along the border, allowing the land above to be an uncrossable zone of death. All U.S. settlements would have to be pulled back from the border for many miles, but that's a small price to pay for such a valuable shield. In addition, we would no longer have to bear the costs of nuclear waste storage. Two birds, one stone.


------------------------------------------------------------------
*This probably could've been completely paid for at a cost of less than a third of Obama's stimulus. And it would've actually put people to work, unlike the stimulus, which just hired census workers and road sign painters.

 

[foobar75]

God bless Governor Jan Brewer and Maricopa Country Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Brewer has more balls than any other sissy male politician out there, and I hope some other states follow suit and pass similr laws to AZ so this thing can catch on like wild fire.

As for Sherrif Arpaio, he's a true American hero in my opinion. Imagine if we had a few more sherrifs like him across the country doing sweeps and taking out the garbage. In a dream scenario, we'd have Ron Paul for President, Arpaio as Vice-President, Jan Brewer as Secretary of Homeland Security, and Rand Paul as Secretary of State.

 

[Thrashen]

Most ruling class, blue blood establishment Republicans are in favor of amnesty in one form or another. So this is not a Democrat vs. Republican issue, it's a ruling class versus the people issue.

Well, yes and no. I agree the leaders of both parties are bought and paid for by the usual suspects and I've cursed them all, BUT the rank and file memberships are - quite - different. The ACLU, Blacks, Jews, Asians, Mestizos, militant homos, feminists, commies, civil rights groups, amnesty advocates, Nambla members, prisoners, gang members, welfare queens, drug dealers etc, etc, are the base of the Democrat Party.

Virtually every time a judge steps in to thwart the will of the people it's a Democrat. We can bank on it. Our courts are loaded with liberal radicals appointed by fellow lefties bent on turning this nation into a third world multicultural freak show.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and now Kagan were all thrust forward by Democrats. Yes, a few Rinos and Neocons did their dirty duty and allowed it to happen but it's almost entirely a Democrat affair.

Who is upset and angered over the Mexican invasion? Who wants deportations and secured borders? On the other hand, who stymies all the efforts of patriots? Not much of a mystery.

Great post, man. I equate the Republican Party to the age-old question of"¦"would you rather have you wife sleep with a total stranger (a liberal), or your best friend (a conservative)?"Â￾

As you said, at times, these non-conservative NeoCon twits do make a few token attempts to be pro-white. And during those times, their activities are only coincidentally pro-white (usually just enforcing simple laws such as illegal immigration). Rest assured that the dreary future for white children never haunts their dreams.

 

[DixieDestroyer]

RW, good suggestions.

FYI, the empire building/Zionist service in the middle east is 10x the squandering of taxpayer (fiat) dollars that a Gulf-Pacific fence (troop patrolled) would be. However...at this point I'd take about any of the above approaches.

 

[DixieDestroyer]

Another useful idiot (lionized by the Zionist controlled "sheepletainment" industry) runs her sewer-hole promoting the illegal invasion. Lady "Kaka" has as much talent as a freshly squeezed pile of horse dung.

Lady Gaga slams Arizona immigration law SB 1070 during Phoenix concert

By Ethan Sacks

Monday, August 2nd 2010, 9:50 AM

Singer Lady Gaga joined the chorus of critics blasting Arizona's controversial new immigration law during a sold-out concert in Phoenix this weekend, the Arizona Republic reported.

"We have to be active. We have to protest. . . . I will yell and I will scream louder," the 24-year-old pop sensation told the sold-out audience at the US Airways Center. "I will hold you, and we will hold each other, and we will peaceably protest this state."

Polls find a majority of Americans support Arizona's SB 1070 law, which cracks down on illegal immigration, but the law has become a charged issue for critics and supporters alike.

A federal judge blocked the part of the law - which went into effect July 29 - that allowed police to detain people on suspected of being illegal immigrants as a violation of the constitutional ban on unreasonable search and seizure.

During Saturday's concert, Lady Gaga told the crowd about a boy she met earlier in the day who's home was raided over "a parking ticket or something," and whose brother was deported to Mexico, the newspaper reported.

Calling the case "disgusting," the star, whose real name is Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta, dedicated the song "You and I" to the boy.

"I think it's important that people understand that it's a state of emergency for this place and this state," she said.

But Lady Gaga stopped short of dumping her Arizona tour dates like big name acts Kanye West and Rage Against the Machine who boycotted the state in protest of SB 1070.

"I got a phone call from a couple really big rock and rollers, big pop stars, big rap artists, and they said, 'We'd like you to boycott Arizona . . . because of SB 1070," she told the cheering crowd.

"I said, 'Do you really think that us dumb (expletive) pop stars are going to collapse the economy of Arizona?"


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/08/02/2010-08-02_lady_gaga_slams_arizona_immigration_law_during_phoenix_concert.html

Edited by: DixieDestroyer

 

[Jimmy Chitwood]

Dixie, here is the video of the "entertainer" feeding the sheeple more of the bitter pill of idiocy. i hope they choke on it.

[tube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1-1Nt5qgqk[/tube]

 

[Thrashen]

Lady Gaga is yet another millionaire white person who wouldn't dare practice what she preaches. No, that's "our"Â￾ dirty work. If she does indeed feel such adoration for non-white immigrants"¦why not donate her many millions of dollars on their behalf? No, that's "our"Â￾ burden. Why not live amongst her people (in Mexico and Africa) instead of in a Beverly Hills mansion with the rest of the "stars?"Â￾ No, that's "our"Â￾ life.

By the way"¦I always laugh whenever the corporate media refers to Lady Gaga as "provocative"Â￾ and "controversial."Â￾ Yes, we're all so "shocked." Their wildest dreams couldn't fathom the things I would do and say as POTUS. Sissies.

 

[foobar75]

Well, Lady Gaga is an admitted crackhead and a pathetic creature doomed to crash and burn eventually. She's been promoted by the usual suspects as the next big thing and the adoring white masses have responded by buying her albums in record numbers and making her famous.

She does not possess the intellectual horsepower to stick her nose into such matters as the Arizona illegal-immigrant law, much like her brainwashed fans who were cheering her speech in that video. This piece of filth would be well advised to just stick her freak show, and I'm sure the sheeple will continue to buy and support more of her music while their country is being destroyed right under their noses.

 

[Westside]

Did you know this woman got over 250 million hits on YouTube! That is quite unbelievable. She has some talent in regards to pop music. "Poker Face and Bad Romance" are original in their craft and compared to what is being put out here.

But my advice to her is the one I gave to Steve Nash. Shut your trap and entertain us only! Another misguided entertainer with really no clue how illegal immigration is negatively impacting this country.