Arizona Illegal-Immigrant Law

[DixieDestroyer]

Lady "Kaka" is an instrument of the Zionist "Sheepletainment" industry...leveraged as a control mechanism over the populace.

 

[white lightning]

I'm not sure who this guy is but he has courage to make this video. It probably won't remain on youtube for very long. Check it out and let's hear some comments about it. Thanks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrA07jcIHZI

 

[Riddlewire]

I'm not sure who this guy is...

Ray must've been pretty mad to do this.
God Bless Him.

 

[DixieDestroyer]

Ol' Ray shows his serious side. I enjoy his novelty songs, but this is a real good'un!

 

[Colonel_Reb]

Ray Stevens has made a lot a fun and good songs over the years. His latest works have been more political and truthful and I've enjoyed them quite a bit. Way to go Ray!

 

[Bart]

Ever womder why our leaders always oppose the will of the people on immigration issues and why nothing EVER changes?

http://www.jewishtimes.com/index.php/jewishtimes/news/jt/national_news/arizona_injunction_wins_praise/19968

Arizona Injunction Wins Praise
July 31, 2010

New York
JTA Wire Service

A federal judge's injunction of parts of the new Arizona immigration law is being praised by several Jewish organizations.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton issued a ruling Wednesday delaying the part of the law that would require local law-enforcement officials to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws. The judge also nixed enforcement of the provisions requiring immigrants to carry papers and banning illegal immigrants from looking for employment in public places.

"We commend Judge Bolton for calling into question the constitutionality of Arizona's ill-conceived immigration law,"Â￾ said Gideon Aronoff, president and CEO of HIAS, the American Jewish community's leading immigration organization. "The law would cause all Arizonans to live under a cloud of suspicion and fear, and lead to immigrant distrust of the police.

"While today's news is encouraging, we caution that Judge Bolton's ruling is only a preliminary action and does not put an end to the possibility of widespread racial profiling in Arizona. We look forward to a court decision that permanently halts this law."Â￾

The American Jewish Committee also praised the ruling.

 

[Thrashen]

Ever womder why our leaders always oppose the will of the people on immigration issues and why nothing EVER changes?

http://www.jewishtimes.com/index.php/jewishtimes/news/jt/national_news/arizona_injunction_wins_praise/19968

Arizona Injunction Wins Praise
July 31, 2010

New York
JTA Wire Service

A federal judge's injunction of parts of the new Arizona immigration law is being praised by several Jewish organizations.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton issued a ruling Wednesday delaying the part of the law that would require local law-enforcement officials to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws. The judge also nixed enforcement of the provisions requiring immigrants to carry papers and banning illegal immigrants from looking for employment in public places.

"We commend Judge Bolton for calling into question the constitutionality of Arizona's ill-conceived immigration law,"Â￾ said Gideon Aronoff, president and CEO of HIAS, the American Jewish community's leading immigration organization. "The law would cause all Arizonans to live under a cloud of suspicion and fear, and lead to immigrant distrust of the police.

"While today's news is encouraging, we caution that Judge Bolton's ruling is only a preliminary action and does not put an end to the possibility of widespread racial profiling in Arizona. We look forward to a court decision that permanently halts this law."Â￾

The American Jewish Committee also praised the ruling.

Why do the Jew-sual Suspects feel as though they themselves, their children, or the never-ending Jewish Supremacist movement in general will somehow be more secure or more prosperous in a nation (or world) devoid of whites? Based on the particulars of the matter"¦it defies all logic.

"We"Â￾ have done nothing accept gratify to their every whim. We've fought and funded dozens of their wars.

We've allowed (and outright encouraged) worldwide Zionist Occupied Governments.

We've allowed our wives and daughters to interbreed, to be raped at astronomical levels by men of other races, to star in porno films and be exploited and deceived by their entertainment industries.

We fully believe that we are athletically, physically, and sexually inferior to Africans"¦intellectually inferior to Asians"¦and spiritually inferior to, well, take your pick.

We adopt, feed, cloth, and fund all non-white races of this earth (and those within our own borders) at the expense of our own children"¦only to be rewarded by their sociopathic savagery, jealously and revulsion.

We are cellular-clay for anyone with the nerve to shape us. We are effortlessly sculpted into ravenous consumers, self-sacrificing slave laborers, pop culture zombies, drug addicts, drunken sports fans, and best of all, pigheaded soldiers of Zionism"¦willing to surrender our lifeblood, heritage, and progeny on the battle fields so that those who loathe us can discard our used-up auras in some desert wasteland. How fitting an end to lifetime of totalitarian betrayal.

However, the proverbial "cracks"Â￾ in the system's great wall are beginning to spoil their little campaign.Edited by: Thrashen

 

[Bart]

Tennesseans favor immigration law like Arizona's, poll shows

http://www.theleafchronicle.com/article/20100728/NEWS01/7280326/Tennesseans-favor-immigration-law-like-Arizona-s-poll-shows

Tennesseans favor bringing Arizona's controversial immigration measure to the state by a four-to-one margin, a poll conducted by The Tennessean and other media outlets found.

Seventy-two percent of voters in the state say they would support enacting a law that would require people stopped by police to prove they are in the country legally. Such legislation would be modeled after an Arizona immigration statute scheduled to go into effect Thursday that lets police charge people who cannot prove their citizenship status under the state's criminal trespassing laws. (snip)

Republican voters were the most likely to support an Arizona-style immigration law, with 92 percent of respondents saying they are in favor of passing a similar measure here. Independents also supported the proposal by a wide margin, with 72 percent in favor compared to only 8 percent against it.

Democrats were more divided, with 44 percent in favor and 46 percent against. Support was also divided by gender â€" with 80 percent of men favoring an Arizona-style law compared to 64 percent of women â€" and support was weakest in West Tennessee, where 62 percent of the population was in favor.

The results came as little surprise to state Rep. Joe Carr, R-Lascassas, who sponsored a resolution in the General Assembly earlier this year congratulating Arizona on the immigration law. Carr plans to travel Friday to present the resolution to Arizona leaders and to attend a seminar for lawmakers interested in writing similar legislation.

 

[Highlander]

A rare, but important victory:

Justices Uphold Immigration Law Aimed at Employers</font>

WASHINGTON â€" The Supreme Court on Thursday gave Arizona and other
states more authority to take action against illegal immigrants and the
companies that hire them, ruling that employers who knowingly hire
illegal workers can lose their license to do business.


The 5-3 decision upholds the Legal Arizona Workers Act of 2007 and
its so-called business death penalty for employers who are caught
repeatedly hiring illegal immigrants. The state law also requires
employers to check the federal E-Verify system before hiring new
workers, a provision that was also upheld Thursday.


The court's decision did not deal with the more controversial Arizona
law passed last year that gave police more authority to stop and
question those who are suspected of being in the state illegally. But
the ruling is likely to encourage the state and its supporters because
the court majority said states remained free to take action involving
immigrants.


Thursday's decision is a defeat for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
several civil-rights groups and the Obama administration, all of whom
opposed the Arizona law and its sanctions on employers. They argued that
federal law said states may not impose "civil or criminal sanctions" on
employers.


But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said another portion of the
same law made clear that states were free to use their "licensing" laws
to punish employers. Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy,
Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. formed the majority in Chamber
of Commerce vs. Whiting.


The Arizona law upheld Thursday was signed into law by then-Gov.
Janet Napolitano, who now serves as secretary of homeland security for
President Barack Obama.


In dissent were Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and
Sonia Sotomayor. They said federal law prohibited states from imposing
their own immigration-related rules on employers. Justice Elena Kagan
sat out the case.


Soon after the Arizona employment law went into effect, lawyers for
the chamber and civil rights group sued, contending it was preempted or
trumped by federal immigration laws. But a federal judge and the U.S.
9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Arizona measure. The Supreme
Court affirmed those decisions Thursday.


Roberts noted that eight other states had passed similar laws. They
are Colorado, Mississippi, Missouri, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia.


The other Arizona law involving police enforcement has been
challenged â€" successfully, so far â€" by the Obama administration and
civil rights groups. They say enforcement of laws against illegal
immigration is exclusively in the hands of federal authorities. A
federal judge and the U.S. 9th Court of Appeals have put that Arizona
law on hold. Gov. Jan Brewer said she planned to appeal the issue to the
Supreme Court.

 

[Jimmy Chitwood]

Judge blocks parts of Georgia immigration law.
an excerpt:

ATLANTA (AP) â€" A federal judge on Monday temporarily blocked parts of Georgia's strict new law targeting illegal immigration from taking effect, including a provision that authorizes police to check the immigration status of suspects without proper identification and to detain illegal immigrants.


Georgia's became the latest in a string of state laws that have been at least temporarily stopped by legal challenges. All or parts of similar laws in Arizona, Utah and Indiana also have been blocked by federal judges.


Judge Thomas Thrash also granted a request from civil liberties groups to block a part of Georgia's law that penalizes people who knowingly and willingly transport or harbor illegal immigrants while committing another crime.


"The defendants wildly exaggerate the scope of the federal crime of harboring under (the law) when they claim that the Plaintiffs are violating federal immigration law by giving rides to their friends and neighbors who are illegal aliens," he said.


The judge was especially critical of that provision, blasting the state's assertion that federal immigration enforcement is "passive." Thrash noted that federal immigration officers remove more than 900 foreign citizens from the country on an average day.


He also wrote that the state measure would overstep the enforcement boundaries established by federal law. Thrash noted that there are thousands of illegal immigrants in Georgia because of the "insatiable demand in decades gone by for cheap labor" in the agriculture and construction industries. But he said the federal government gives priority to prosecuting and removing illegal immigrants who have committed crimes.


The civil liberties groups had sued to have those and other provisions blocked before they took effect Friday, though Thrash did toss parts of that lawsuit. The groups had argued that the law allows unreasonable seizures; blocks a constitutional right to travel; and restricts access to government services on the basis of national origin. The judge dismissed those claims, along with allegations the measure violates property rights and the state constitution.

 

[white lightning]

Only in America does Washington DC take the states to court to keep them from defending themselves.

 

[BeyondFedUp]

This is an older thread but I decided to put this here.

The Imposter and the Federal Gov't may have just given Sheriff Joe Arpaio the death sentence. This is the same US Gov't that tries to sue and block the State of Arizona from enforcing security of their own border. This is more evidence of treason by our own government against its people.

 

[werewolf]

Here is Sheriff Joe's website. You can also send him contributions there. Google hides it underneath fake commy sites like "arpaio.com".


http://www.reelectsheriffjoearpaio.com