Federal Judge blocks parts of the Arizona immigration law
 

Not supprising really legislation from the bench.... again....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_arizona_immigration

Just a thought here, but wouldn't it be interesting if ICE started tracking down and deporting any illegal immigrant that made statements to the media indicating their illegal status? Wonder how that would go?:hmmm:

Looks like another chapter of a book that should be titled,
"The Selling Out Of USA".

Yet another case of putting the Illegals ahead of the Citizens. I can't wait until November, its time to shut this administration down and todays ruling will only help the cause.

I'm sure that right now alot of people smarter than me are digging into this Judges background looking for any dirt that can be used against her, i hope they find some.

The only way now to fight back is to boycott any business that you suspect uses illegal workers. There is no law preventing a regular citizen from profiling, if it starts to hurt those with legal status then too bad, they should have supported us when we needed it.

The Funny thing is until this Country decended into insanity i couldn't have cared less about Politics.

Just out of curiosity, how are you going to tell what business use illegals? Also I've heard that agricultural is done by a lot of illegals as well. Plan on boycotting the grocery store?

Now don't get me wrong on the topic, illegal is illegal in my book and something needs to be done.

Trust me the left screamed bloody murder when judges tied to the oil industry ruled to keep drilling going. Nobody gives a rats butt about "background"

Im refering more to the local level, your lawn service,your plumbers,construction companys, your corner store, your restarants, ect. if you suspect (You don't have to be sure, just go by gut instinct) they are hiring illegals don't give them your business. If you hired them and you see a bunch of suspected illegals on your property, fire them.

I have already done this with two lawn care companys where only one or two guys spoke english on a crew of 10 to 12. Its far from perfect, but there is little else you can do. If this makes me a racist then so be it, there are far worse things i have been called before.

@Zachstar I still support drilling, We have the oil here why are we giving billions to the arabs for it? The problem with this mess was clearly the fact that they were permitted to modify the overflow valve that normally would have shut this mess down right away. The problem is the politics of the situation, had the rules been followed this would not have happened.

That all sounds good but, all you have is The Left (Democrats), and The Artificial "Right" (Republicans).

The Republican Party has been moved to a position just to the right of The Democratic Party, which is still a Hard Left position.

Your whole deck of cards is marked (dirty).
The only way to fix it peacefuly, is to change the whole deck.

Your recommendation is sound, and has merrit.

The only other alternative would be to turn in the suspected employer, but you'd probably need a little proof for that. That's about all you can do, although you could always shout la migra (sp?) and see how many run just for fun.:haha: As for the oil and the arabs, when it comes down to war over oil and we still have our reserves...

So is this the legislation Jan Brewer said would not stand when it was signed not standing as predicted.

Just right of the dems? Anti-Choice Anti-Regulation even after a financial disaster Religion in politics? Pro-DOMA and Pro-DADT is that the republicans you call just right?

You sir are scary.

Outside of their religiouse nonsense, on social issues, they are Left.

Socialism is Leftist.
What have the republicans done to erradicate it? Nothing.

While I took note of this story going on, I explcitly read in detail only one news article about it, this one:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10800906
And it gave me the strong impression that the judge did not block the law over principle concerns about it'S aim and content, but it'S partial incompatability with guaranteed rights by the constitution:
That of course can be read two ways. Does the higher interest justify a possibly only minor nuisance for the few and the one? The principle question is whether or not checking somebody's identity is an unacceptable burden to him, limiting his freedom, or not. If you say it is, then any law enforcement can be argued to be breaching the freedom of suspects in case these supects prove to be innocent.

However, the whole debate suffers from one major proboemn, that the racism card was beinbg played. Once you compßlain about anything you do not like beign a racist attack on you, all further disucssion and thinking about it has already been successfully temrinated and shut down. In today' politically most correct times, "racism!" is like yelling "sharks!" at the beach. The reaction already is predetemined and forseeable, and reason is the first victim anyway. even if the shadow labelled shark proves to be just a swarm of herrings or a bluefish, and the accusation of racism lacks any basis.

However, this part I cannot understand, to me it lacks any reason:
It should not a court's only basis of decision to follow somebody else's "habits".
If aliens no longer need to be able t prove they are legally present, then de facto you abolish the distinction between legal and illegal aliens. Which might me the intention beyond refusing to check alien's legal status.

However, it is a deeply FUBAR situatio, it seems. Well, england is pressed into appeasement by it's huge Pakistani subcultre, Germany allows to get blackmailed by the Turkish ministry of religion, and America has it'S border and migration issues with - failed? - state of Mexico.Failed state becasue when a goivernment needs to fight a civil war against national organised crime and in certain regions seems to have lost this war, then this is anything but a non-failed state, is it. And if the battle against crime causes the loss of a five digit number of lives, then this is more a civil war than it is a solid state order. I think the US should consider to massively intervene in intel and special operations in Mexico and try to kill as many members and leaders of organised crime as possible. That is less a violation of another anarchy's sovereignity, but a case of own self-defence. And the good news is: doing so would not effect america's supply with oil. :)

I wonder why it lacks sense?
It doesn't say that at all which is why you cannot make sense of it.