Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

White House takes ownership of Arizona lawsuit

Good. It looks like the White House isn't flinching from taking ownership of the Justice Department's lawsuit to overturn the Arizona immigration law.

After the lawsuit was announced yesterday, people began asking whether Obama would refrain from attaching himself to it, since in theory Justice decides to pursue such cases independently. But in today's press briefing, Robert Gibbs said Obama stands squarely behind the decision.

This is a risky move, no question. A new Rassmussen poll finds that 56 percent of U.S. voters oppose the lawsuit. Yes, it's Ras, but that finding is in line with other polls showing majority support for the law.

Today Gibbs twice stated that Obama is behind the lawsuit, citing the need for the Federal government, not the states, to set immigration policy.

"The President believes that we filed a strong case based on the fact that you can't have 50 states making a patchwork of immigration decisions," Gibbs said.

Gibbs acknowledged that the lawsuit could be bad politics, but framed the decision to sue as proof that the administration was not taking politics into account.

"The President wasn't elected to do what was popular; he was elected to do what's right," Gibbs said, reiterating Obama's opposition to states-based solutions: "Only through Federally passed immigration reform will we truly have a national standard. That's the reason that the lawsuit was filed."

In reality, by embracing the lawsuit, the White House is placing one political imperative over another.

The lawsuit to overturn the popular Arizona measure will very likely be used against Dems in swing districts across the country. But White House advisers are said to be concerned that Obama's declining numbers among Latinos could spell trouble in key states in 2010 and 2012. And Harry Reid needs big Latino support to get reelected.

Immigration reform -- the best way to boost Latino support -- may not move this year. And so, in embracing the effort to overturn the law, the White House appears to be opting to speak to Latinos and other base voters on this contentious issue.

It remains to be seen how forcefully the president himself will speak up for the lawsuit when asked about it, and Gibbs did sidestep a question about the civil rights and racial profiling aspects of this debate. But for now, suffice it to say that even though this will make some Democratic consultants very queasy, the White House appears willing to own this highly controversial effort.

By Greg Sargent  |  July 7, 2010; 2:52 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections , 2012 , Immigration , Senate Dems  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Sharron Angle: We're going to "pursue" Harry Reid for reposting my Web site -- possibly in court
Next: MSNBC's excuse for banning Markos doesn't hold water

Comments

@Greg: "Yes, it's Ras..."

Why do you continue to use a qualifier? Ras did quite well in Silver's latest ratings:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/search/label/pollster%20ratings

Posted by: sbj3 | July 7, 2010 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Federal pre-emption should be enough to overturn the AZ law. But there's another weakness I haven't heard mention of.

A US citizen can be stopped and required to show proof of citizenship if a police officer has "reasonable grounds" to suspect the target of being in the US illegally. The law doesn't spell out what constitutes reasonable grounds. Seems pretty clear to me that's unconstitutionally vague.

Posted by: jzap | July 7, 2010 3:20 PM | Report abuse

"Gibbs twice stated that Obama is behind the lawsuit, citing the need for the Federal government, not the states, to set immigration policy."

The AZ law does NOT set immigration policy.

"Gibbs did sidestep a question about the civil rights and racial profiling aspects of this debate."

Perhaps that is because:

"The filing makes no assertion that the law is discriminatory or risks being applied in a discriminatory fashion, as the president and other officials said they feared would be the case. Interestingly, this suit makes no civil rights charges against the Arizona law."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/07/justice-department-sues-arizona-for-immigration-law.html

Posted by: sbj3 | July 7, 2010 3:29 PM | Report abuse

sbj3: "Why do you continue to use a qualifier? Ras did quite well in Silver's latest ratings"

The 538 post you linked to sbj3 puts Ras at #15!! How could the pollster with the most polls in field not even make the Top 3? Goes a long way towards indicting Ras' credibility!

Btw, everyone now qualifies a Ras poll, except Fox!

Posted by: bmcchgo | July 7, 2010 3:35 PM | Report abuse

sbj -- so what? they didn't believe that was the strongest case. they were explicit about their belief that Fed/states argument is the way to go.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | July 7, 2010 3:39 PM | Report abuse

@Greg: "so what? they didn't believe that was the strongest case."

You're the one who emphasized the fact that Gibbs sidestepped those questions!

And they didn't pursue the civil rights aspect because they have no case - not because it wasn't the "strongest" part.

Posted by: sbj3 | July 7, 2010 3:44 PM | Report abuse

@Greg: And what do you mean, so what?

Were you not around when every lefty blog and the President was hyperventilating about the "civil rights and racial profiling aspects" of the law? Turns out there are none - as evidenced by the fact that, "The filing makes no assertion that the law is discriminatory or risks being applied in a discriminatory fashion... this suit makes no civil rights charges against the Arizona law."

Posted by: sbj3 | July 7, 2010 3:48 PM | Report abuse

hey, they also love ras at redstate. denying that ras has a republican/rightwing house effect is not at all credible.

besides being the right thing to do, challenging this vague and open to abuse law will probably provide another advantage to dems going into the election: it will keep the immigration reform debate front and center, which will induce many rightwingers and republicans to let their freak flag fly in terms of racism, bigotry and nativism.

i'm not claiming all republicans and rightwingers are racist or hold racist positions, but i'd guess it's a significant proportion, if not the majority.

Posted by: blahgblogwordpresscom | July 7, 2010 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Wonder what it's like to be a blogger and have a commenter parse and quarrel with every single word you write...

Posted by: CTVoter | July 7, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

sbj,

prosecutors often concentrate on one issue even when there are other possibilities.

based solely on suspicion -- even based on shoes as some reps and rightwingers have claimed -- a cop can walk up to anyone and demand their papers. and they can use any reason to initiate contact with anyone they want, any time they want.

and let's be serious here, they are not going to be harassing swedes, french, japanese, africans or sub continental) indians. this is intended to be and will be directed at anyone a cop thinks might be latino, no matter whether that cop is a first generation child of immigrants from europe and the latino's family has been in the us for more than 160 years.

Posted by: blahgblogwordpresscom | July 7, 2010 3:57 PM | Report abuse

"Wonder what it's like to be a blogger and have a commenter parse and quarrel with every single word you write..."

It must get *very* tiresome...

Posted by: msmollyg | July 7, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Yes, it's Ras... As opposed to Kos/R2000 which were first rate until last week?

Posted by: Truthteller12 | July 7, 2010 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Does Arizona issue its own Green Cards? May be they should.

And the Federal Government didn't do a good job of capturing Osama either. The Governor and the Jingos should take that one on too. I guarranty that a larger majority of the Americans would agree that it is a nobler cause.

Posted by: kishorgala | July 7, 2010 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Sargent writes "Robert Gibbs said Obama stands squarely behind the decision. This is a risky move, no question."

Well, Sec. Clinton already told us that Pres. Obama was the one directing Mr. Holder to file suit. It would have been riskier to pretend/cover-up who's pulling Holder's strings.

Posted by: AmericanDelight | July 7, 2010 4:03 PM | Report abuse

"Wonder what it's like to be a blogger and have a commenter parse and quarrel with every single word you write..."

It must get *very* tiresome...

Posted by: msmollyg | July 7, 2010 3:58 PM
========================================
If you enjoy it, it is not tiresome......It may actually be very refreshing.

Posted by: kishorgala | July 7, 2010 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Unless they get a real Leftist Judge that feels job threatened also...Feds won't win this one. Our wonderful Hispanic citizens don't want a bunch of Drug Cartels and dealers and hookers here either. Who wants to be associated with all that? And
Pres.Obama has done nothing at all about this severe problem on our borders, yet now he suddenly says the Feds should handle it not Arizona or states.

His need is ONLY to get Hispanic votes in 11/10 and for himself in 2012..that is his need. Hispanics, don't be fooled. And worse yet, is Obama wanting to give Amnesty to so many criminals mixed in with good people. NO Amnesty.

Posted by: journe | July 7, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Arizona can trump the justice department by.........


..........seceding from the Union! Until then they would remian a State and not a Country.

Posted by: kishorgala | July 7, 2010 4:15 PM | Report abuse

journe,

Crime along the border has been down for the past three years and deportations are UP under the Obama administration. Those are facts you haters conveniently forget every time.

Posted by: bmcchgo | July 7, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

teller,

you do realize that kos not only dropped but actually is suing research2000 once it became apparent their numbers were fishy, right?

Posted by: blahgblogwordpresscom | July 7, 2010 4:18 PM | Report abuse

@kishorgala:

And if AZ does secede, Brewer can just go ahead and declare war on Mexico!

Until the secession, though, no declarations of war, and no immigration policy.

Posted by: CTVoter | July 7, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

What is so amazing about this is the way Mr Sargent casts aside the notion of doing what is right in a democracy in favor of a cold political calculation.

So Gibbs can blow smoke in the general direction of Mr Sargent's solid waste disposal unit with this "obama was elected, blah, blah, blah" all he choses. Mr Sargent has outlined exactly what it going on here. It is simple and disgusting.

Mr Obama made a choice between supporting the people of Arizona and keeping his party in power.

It is that simple.

It is that disgusting.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | July 7, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

journe,

Crime along the border has been down for the past three years and deportations are UP under the Obama administration. Those are facts you haters conveniently forget every time.

Posted by: bmcchgo | July 7, 2010 4:16 PM
=======================================
But Obama is black! Well, if he is not black then he is a liberal. And if he is not a liberal than he is a socialist!

Posted by: kishorgala | July 7, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

@blah: "based solely on suspicion... -- a cop can walk up to anyone and demand their papers."

I don't believe you are correct. The police can ask citizenship questions/proof only during the course of lawful contact. Asking someone for their papers because of their shoes would not constitute lawful contact.

Posted by: sbj3 | July 7, 2010 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Hmmmm. Linked by Hot Air?

Posted by: CTVoter | July 7, 2010 4:27 PM | Report abuse

skip,

how exactly did obama not do "what is right in a democracy in favor of a cold political calculation"?

how did he make "a choice between supporting the people of Arizona and keeping his party in power"?

are you one of these rightwing republicans who think obama has taken away your 'freedoms and liberties'? if so, which ones, exactly?

Posted by: blahgblogwordpresscom | July 7, 2010 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Rasmussen is currently in his "creating a narrative" stage. The narrative is, as always for Roger Ailes' buddy Scotty Rasmussen, Democrats are DOOMED! This narrative helps to get additional fundraising, convince Republican candidates to run and convince Republican incumbents not to retire.

At the end of September, Rasmussen will "modify" his "likely voter" screen, and shift from crafting a narrative to actually taking a stab at predicting the elections in November.

I actually have no problem with Rasmussen doing this. Fox News has a business model that works very well, as does Rasmussen. What I have a serious problem with is him not being honest about it, and a serious problem with the lazy traditional media not calling him out on it.

It's the same as Fox News: I don't have a problem with the Republican party owning its own cable station, I just have a problem with them being so blatantly dishonest about it, and with national political reporters/journalists doing nothing.

Rasmussen will be useful, in terms of predicting elections, at the end of September. Until then, Scotty Rasmussen is to polling what Roger Ailes (head of Fox News) is to news.

Posted by: AjaxtheGreater | July 7, 2010 4:29 PM | Report abuse

sbj,

but, come on. you have to know cops concoct reasons to initiate contact with 'suspicious' people every day. i agree that it's unconstitutional, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen every single day. and it's very hard and usually impossible to prove.

they can of course lie, but often they don't even have to do that. have you ever jay walked, thrown a cig on the ground, not used a turn signal, not come to a complete stop, etc, etc etc...

Posted by: blahgblogwordpresscom | July 7, 2010 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Ever heard of "Driving While Black?" I'm sure it's just another of those "realities" created by Liberals, right sbj?

Posted by: cmccauley60 | July 7, 2010 4:36 PM | Report abuse

All, check this out: MSNBC bans Markos for hurting Scarborough's feelings, but lets Liz Cheney skate for cutting a Web video slamming Olbermann:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/07/msnbcs_excuse_for_banning_mark.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | July 7, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

@blah and cmc: So, are you proposing that we do away with all laws which might be enforced in a biased manner?

Posted by: sbj3 | July 7, 2010 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Are you now agreeing that this law "might be enforced in a biased manner?"

What happened to "civil rights and racial profiling aspects of the law? Turns out there are none"?

Posted by: cmccauley60 | July 7, 2010 4:44 PM | Report abuse

@blah and cmc: So, are you proposing that we do away with all laws which might be enforced in a biased manner?

Posted by: sbj3 | July 7, 2010 4:41 PM
=======================================
What do you think? If the law is biased against someone as compared to someone else?

Was your question rhetorical?

Posted by: kishorgala | July 7, 2010 4:45 PM | Report abuse

resorting to argumentum ad absurdum is almost never a good move.

when did i or the other poster propose such a thing. we are noting a long term reality in american life -- one you appear unwilling and unable to refute.

in doing so we showing how open the law is to abuse. but to suggest that our position somehow obligates us to oppose all laws is silly -- and lazy.

Posted by: blahgblogwordpresscom | July 7, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

@blah and cmc: ANY law might be enforced in a biased manner. You don't get rid of the law - you prosecute the offenders. (Never a good move to resort to latin.)

Posted by: sbj3 | July 7, 2010 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Olbermann left dKos
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/6/17/876760/-Check,-Please

But apparently he came back
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/6/22/878319/-So,-uh,-this-looks-like-a-nice-site

Posted by: msmollyg | July 7, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse

i would hardly call using the widely know name of an argument 'resorting to latin,' but whatever.

so, you agree that the law can -- and almost certainly will -- be applied in a biased way?

Posted by: blahgblogwordpresscom | July 7, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Americans, just like Arizona, have reached a crossroads. There is a clear choice. The rest of the country can "go the way" of Arizona or the way of California.

California is on the brink of financial armageddon. The "illegal immigration state" is crippled by insane legislators, rich removed-from-it-all celebrities, and liberal psychotics. Reality, logic, and responsibility have all been labeled "racist" in this sea of stupidity.

Obama had clearly stated that "securing the border will never happen, its just too big". He has also stated that "the laws are unenforceable". So his message is "we surrender" to the masses of crime and poverty pouring in from Mexico, and "we surrender" to the rest of the world who want to send murderous operatives to plot against us while living on our soil.

It could just be the legislators in YOUR state want to pass laws just like Arizona's SB1070. If you want to follow California, just type "racist" on as many blogs you can. If you want to follow Arizona, help us fight the cheap-labor cheap-votes cartel in Washington D.C.

You have a choice, and I hope you will give a little something to a fight which will ULTIMATELY affect your children and grandchildren.

Are you more intelligent than the Milwaukee city council supervisor who doesn't know Arizona borders Mexico? THIS is the type of massive ignorance and obsessional greed we are dealing with.

Help us. It will come back to you.


Posted by: ZOO1 | July 7, 2010 5:08 PM | Report abuse

@zoo: 'Obama had clearly stated that "securing the border will never happen, its just too big". He has also stated that "the laws are unenforceable".'

please provide links showing when and where obama supposedly made these remarks.

Posted by: blahgblogwordpresscom | July 7, 2010 5:13 PM | Report abuse

zoo,

while we're at it, can you answer a question no rightwinger or republican has been able to give me an answer to?

do you believe obama has 'taken away your freedoms and liberties'? if yes, which ones, exactly?

Posted by: blahgblogwordpresscom | July 7, 2010 5:15 PM | Report abuse

blah,

I personally heard the remarks in sound bites on the network news, along with video of Obama saying them. You may find them here:

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/07/01/transcript-of-obamas-immigration-speech/

Yesterday, attributed to no one person, the reports said the White House suit claimed that Arizona was "trying to set the Federal governments priorities" and "interferring with foreign relations policy".

Freedoms and liberties is not the issue. It is the Federal government's CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY and THE LAW to defend our borders. Obama won't, and Bush would not. We have citizens and police officers being slain by illegals. We have a southern Arizona sheriff who has been "green lighted" by the Mexican drug cartels for murder or "hit". We have a foreign country trying to dictate U.S. policy and the law. The issue is the law and protecting American citizens and legal residents; not intangible philisophical concepts.

Posted by: ZOO1 | July 7, 2010 5:35 PM | Report abuse

ZOO1,

Racist!

Having that out of the way, I am in favor of letting people (as in humans) make a better living for themselves while providing a benefit of cheap costs to others. If you want to pick onions at 50 cents a pound, the job is yours.

As for a fraction of criminals, they are already covered under the State's criminal laws. Arizona does not need to put the Federal hat on for that.

Posted by: kishorgala | July 7, 2010 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Let's see....People don't want to pay taxes, people are complaining about deficit (rather selectively depending on which party is in power), and people want to Federal Government to fully execute all laws without prioritizing as if there is infinite money......

Okey dokey!

Posted by: kishorgala | July 7, 2010 5:54 PM | Report abuse

zoo,

i'm not going to do your work for you and read through the entire 4000+ word speech to validate your quotes.

please pull the quotes you attributed to obama from the speech and let us know what paragraph(s) they occur in.

Posted by: blahgblogwordpresscom | July 7, 2010 5:57 PM | Report abuse

@blah: "so, you agree that the law can -- and almost certainly will -- be applied in a biased way?"

No.

I agree that unscrupulous police officers can always find some way to single out those they deem undesirable. They don't do it through a "bad law" - they do it through perfectly fine laws.

I believe your argument is that many persons of color are routinely stopped for, say, a bad tailight - while "white" folks committing the same infraction are not stopped. This is selective enforcement and might be called "driving while black."

Is the selective enforcement due to a poorly written law? Not at all.

Posted by: sbj3 | July 7, 2010 5:58 PM | Report abuse

zoo,

by the way, i searched the speech in a word doc and the quotes you attribute to obama never appear.

you might claim that you're paraphrasing, but then why use quotation marks?

please point to the specific remarks obama made that you were supposedly paraphrasing?

Posted by: blahgblogwordpresscom | July 7, 2010 6:03 PM | Report abuse

blah,

Links to Obama remarks about "unenforceable law".

http://www.libertyjuice.com/2010/07/01/obama-new-arizona-laws-are-unenforceable/

http://beforeitsnews.com/news/90/999/Obama:_New_Arizona_Laws_Are_Unenforceable.html

http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-az-law-is-divisive-and-unenforceable/

Apparently you lack the knowledge to know that we, as taxpayers, subsidize cheap labor, legal or illegal. In Arizona, it costs each household an extra $1,000 in taxes while illegal employers run to the bank to deposit illegal profits.

So, I gave you the info to back up what I said. Now I'll let someone else banter with you over the truth. I can only deal with your type of mentality for so long.

Posted by: ZOO1 | July 7, 2010 6:05 PM | Report abuse

sbj,

well, we certainly seem to agree that laws are frequently selectively enforced. and you're right that perfectly constitutional laws can be selectively enforced.

but, as many numerous supreme court decisions demonstrate, it is a long held tradition that poorly written laws are especially subject to selective enforcement.

and the arizona law is so badly written that it ensures selective enforcement.

Posted by: blahgblogwordpresscom | July 7, 2010 6:07 PM | Report abuse

what zoo said: 'Obama had clearly stated that "securing the border will never happen, its just too big". He has also stated that "the laws are unenforceable". So his message is "we surrender" to the masses of crime and poverty pouring in from Mexico, and "we surrender" to the rest of the world who want to send murderous operatives to plot against us while living on our soil.'

and: 'Links to Obama remarks about "unenforceable law".'

what obama said: 'Laws like Arizona’s put huge pressures on local law enforcement to enforce rules that ultimately are unenforceable.'

obama was referring to the arizona law, but you have now repeatedly said he claimed 'the laws,' which in the context of your quote implies all immigration laws, are unenforceable.

you are falsely quoting him. you also don't attempt to back up your first quote of him allegedly giving up on enforcement because the border will 'never happen, its just too big.'

i am certainly not surprised that you easily tire of 'the mentality' of someone who asks you to back up your wild assertions.

i would guess that you spend a lot of time at sites where no one challenges your lies.

Posted by: blahgblogwordpresscom | July 7, 2010 6:17 PM | Report abuse

There is also this:

the DOJ notes that SB-1070 will create a situation in which the “federal government will be required to divert resources from its own, carefully considered enforcement priorities – dangerous aliens who pose a threat to national security and public safety – to address the work that Arizona will now create for it.”

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/07/07/kobach-arizona-lawsuit/

Posted by: cmccauley60 | July 7, 2010 6:19 PM | Report abuse

@blah: "It is a long held tradition that poorly written laws are especially subject to selective enforcement. And the arizona law is so badly written that it ensures selective enforcement."

That would be the crux of the matter and one that I cannot judge.

Posted by: sbj3 | July 7, 2010 6:25 PM | Report abuse

According to the training video on TV a couple of days ago, the AZ police is supposed to call the Federal border authorities to pick up the suspected undocumented people. If the border authority does not pick them up, then it is AZ's decision/problem.

Of course, the border authority will not have resources to entertain the requests. Let's see what happens at that point.

By the way, I haven't seen the town square hangings since the Western days. And only in movies.

Posted by: kishorgala | July 7, 2010 6:29 PM | Report abuse

sbj,

i should have said that it *virtually* ensures it. in my opinion and experience -- as a white guy -- it certainly seems to make selective enforcement very, very likely.

anyway, that's not what the suit is about, although i don't know if that's for legal or political reasons.

i hope it is overturned.

Posted by: blahgblogwordpresscom | July 7, 2010 6:39 PM | Report abuse

It seems to me that no Fed law suit would seek to raise the civil rights aspect if it's not necessary to the disposition of the case...to do so casts aspersions upon the law enforcement behavior of Arizona's public safety personnel...why take that insulting step when the basic preemption argument is such an obvious slam dunk. After all, our country endured a terrible civil war to permanently rebut the idea of states having the right to interfere with prerogatives the Federal gov claims for itself. As for these calls for secession, that's treasonous on the face of it, and suing the FG is quixotic at best, because the FG would have to decide to let itself be sued.

Posted by: dkdenze | July 7, 2010 7:03 PM | Report abuse

Why do some of our Governors seem to want to work for the illegal immigrants that are here. I hope every one of those 6 Governors that didn't want to go to the meeting at Arizona to discuss our illegal immigrant problems here all loose their jobs at the next elections. That is how the Americans speak when we are ignored when we want to get rid of all of the illegal people that are here and our elected officals don't seem to care!

Posted by: randykree | July 7, 2010 7:12 PM | Report abuse

ZOO1 - This is the portion of the speech you are referring to? There's been much talk among the right blogosphere regarding this quote, but unfortunately only part of it gets posted. From the White House website: . We have to do that work, but it’s important that we acknowledge the facts. Even as we are committed to doing what’s necessary to secure our borders, even without passage of the new law, there are those who argue that we should not move forward with any other elements of reform until we have fully sealed our borders. But our borders are just too vast for us to be able to solve the problem only with fences and border patrols. It won’t work. Our borders will not be secure as long as our limited resources are devoted to not only stopping gangs and potential terrorists, but also the hundreds of thousands who attempt to cross each year simply to find work.

Posted by: DinOH | July 7, 2010 8:16 PM | Report abuse

DinOH,

"But our borders are just too vast for us to be able to solve the problem only with fences and border patrols."

Rather than get into a semantic-fest with an obvious pro-illegal cheerleader, I stand behind what I said. Obama, by the exact quote above, is saying (or hinting) that we need to SURRENDER and convert illegals to legal. And I suppose the out-of-context freaks are going to argue next that granting amnesty WILL be the 3RD element needed to secure the border. Anybody with even elementary knowledge of the situation knows that every mention of "comprehensive immigration reform" triggers another surge from the outhouse to the south.

I also assume they ALSO believe they can secure the border from terrorists with Comprehensive Terrorists Reform.

You will note there was no defensive attack about subsidizing cheap labor. If there are Americans who want to pay substantial additional taxes to support 'ally ally all in free' for uncalculable numbers of imported poverty-riddled invaders, they can pay my share, or move to California.

What most lame-brains don't realize that given the "average" profile of an illegal alien family, even when the breadwinner earns a skilled wage level, the cost to taxpayers (who actually pay taxes) is overwhelming.

So let's have to cheerleaders chew on this, and see if they have a calulator with enough digits to multiply this PER-YEAR profile by 12 million, 20 million, or 30 million:

POST-AMNESTY FINANCIAL PROFILE
Subject: Man and wife, “former” illegal immigrants
Children: 5 ( the average for Hispanic family)
Income: $48,362
Federal Withholding: $0 (based on estimated tax)
Tax Paid: +$4,836 (all income spent on goods and
services at 10% tax rate)
Public Schooling: -$32,500 (5 x 6,500)
Basic Healthcare: -$3,500 (state AHCCCS 7 x $500)
Federal Tax Refund: -$5,666 (maximum E.I.C. earnings credit)
State Tax Refund: $400 (Arizona Family Tax Credit)
TOTALS:
Taxes Paid: $4,836
Cost Of
Schooling,
Healthcare,
And Tax
Subsidies: $42,066
Difference: -$37,230



Posted by: ZOO1 | July 7, 2010 9:28 PM | Report abuse

Another great left wing article by the low life's ant the Democratic Party's personal newspaper!! I JUST WANNA PUKE!!!

Posted by: WHOOSONPHIRST | July 8, 2010 9:12 AM | Report abuse

Stop the BS.
On a recent summer day in San Francisco, the Tamale Lady celebrated her 57th birthday at Zeitgeist bar.

For the past 17 years, the Patron Saint of the Tamale - otherwise known as Virginia Ramos - has peddled her homemade tamales and motherly advice late into the night at bars in the Mission and South of Market.

A rockumentary, "Our Lady of Tamale," has been made about her, not to mention a 50-song tribute CD. "I (Heart) The Tamale Lady" stickers adorn Critical Mass bikes and dive bars throughout the city.

What gave you the idea to start selling tamales? I needed to put seven kids through college, and I wasn't making enough cleaning houses.

Was the extra income enough?

Five went to college, and one is in the military, so I did all right.

How did you learn to make tamales?

The church ladies in my little Mexican town, in Nayarit.

How did you get to San Francisco?

I had a hard life, no parents to buy me food or anything. I married at 14 because I had no place to go. Then he started with alcohol, so my brother helped me move to California. I worked cleaning houses until one by one I could bring my kids here.

How has your life changed since you've been in the newspaper and a film?

People give me a lot of congratulations, and companies like Dolby and Lucasfilm ask me to bring tamales.

Is it still a surprise when you show up in a bar, or can people follow you on Twitter now?

I am all kind of places on the Internet. Face ... Face ... what's that Face thing? I don't know it, but my son put me on there, yeah. He does the Twitter, too.

Have you expanded your menu?

I still make chicken mole, pork, and vegetable, but I added bean and sweet potato, and bell pepper with cheese. Chicken mole is still the best seller.

How many do you sell?

I get up early in the morning, and make 100. I have a couple helpers. I clean houses, then take a nap and start selling at 6 p.m. until the bars close.

Do you ever get any free time?

If I do, I like to go to church. To thank God. I go to St. Charles or St. Peter's. I have saints at home, I do a little Santeria.

Do you have a pet?

Josephine. She's a Lab mix/pit bull whatever.

Where do you live?

In the Mission, honey!

What would you buy if you could?

Maybe one day I will get enough money to open my own place. Everybody could come in and I could join them in one place. I could hug my people and make sure they don't go to sleep hungry. And tell them not to break themselves doing drugs.

E-mail Meredith May at mmay@sfchronicle.com.

This article appeared on page E - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/08/DDHM1E2JTN.DTL#ixzz0t7Pvt5Kx

Posted by: dmscontractor | July 8, 2010 3:25 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company