Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Immigration emerging as 2010 issue?

1. The Obama administration's decision to move forward with a legal challenge to Arizona's stringent illegal immigration law will almost certainly elevate the issue on the campaign trail this fall.

The Arizona measure, which was signed into law by Gov. Jan Brewer (R) in April, is a major political touchstone--of prime importance to Hispanics, the fastest growing demographic group in the country and a coveted electoral prize for both parties.

Democratic strategists see the Arizona law as a key moment in the ongoing battle to win the loyalty of Hispanic voters. They believe that it will have a similar chilling effect for Republicans with Latinos as the passage of California's Proposition 187 did in the 1990s.

Republicans, on the other hand, believe that Democrats are badly out of step with the American people on the immigration issue. They cite the Obama administration's aggressive approach to fighting the Arizona law is yet more evidence of that out-of-touchness.

In that vein, nearly two dozen House Republicans sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder on Tuesday describing the legal challenge as the "height of irresponsibility and arrogance."

Polling on the Arizona law specifically falls in Republicans' favor, although broader data suggests a public deeply divided on immigration.

In the latest Washington Post/ABC poll, 58 percent expressed support for the Arizona law -- including 42 percent who were strongly supportive -- while 41 percent opposed it.

But in that same survey, which was conducted in early June, nearly six in ten (57 percent) of people supported allowing illegal immigrants to stay in the country if they paid a fine and met other citizenship requirements -- a major plank of past attempts to offer a comprehensive immigration solution.

And, on the question of whether the state government should be allowed to make its own laws on immigration or whether that should be left up to the federal government, the public was deeply divided, with 46 percent choosing states and 52 percent opting for the federal government.

(On that question, partisanship is a major predictor: three quarters of Democrats said that the federal government should be in charge of immigration law, while 59 percent of Republicans and 57 percent of independents said states should be free to make their own laws.)

While President Obama has made something of a rhetorical push of late on immigration, party strategists believe the issue is too politically hot -- and with too little clarity on what the American people want -- for it to be taken up in an election year.

The administration's lawsuit, however, ensures that the immigration debate will be front and center for the next few months -- making it a virtual certainty that for some (many?) it will be a voting issue on Nov. 2.

2. Indiana Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D) is up with his first TV ad of the race for the seat of retiring Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), a 30-second spot touting his background as a sheriff but making no mention of his current occupation.

"One thing that 25 years as a sheriff teaches you is zero tolerance for bull," the two-term southern Indiana Congressman says in the straight-to-camera spot. "There's too much at stake. But out in Washington, it's like they live and breathe this stuff."

It's the most striking example to date of Ellsworth's endeavor to run as sheriff -- he was the top cop in Vanderburgh County before being elected to Congress -- and not as a congressman. Even Ellsworth's campaign website touts him as a sheriff: it features a banner photo with the candidate standing next to a sheriff's car and the first paragraph of his bio leads with his "over two decades of experience in the local Sheriff's office," making only a passing reference his "brief time as the 8th District's Congressman."

(Ellsworth is far from the only representative this cycle to leave out any mention of his current occupation. Just yesterday, Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) released a TV ad highlighting his background as a high school teacher and university president, making no mention of his years in the House Republican leadership.)

National Republicans were quick to point out the omission in Ellsworth's ad. "Brad Ellsworth is right: voters have 'zero tolerance for bull.' But unfortunately, 'bull' is exactly what Ellsworth is offering Hoosiers in this hypocritical and insulting campaign advertisement," National Republican Senatorial Committee communications director Brian Walsh said.

3. Iowa Republicans have cut their voter registration gap in half -- a sign of not only a competitive gubernatorial GOP primary in the state last month but also the movement of the state away from Democrats in recent months.

Iowa Secretary of State Mike Mauro (D) announced Tuesday that Republicans added 37,000 voters to the rolls in June, while Democrats lost 10,000 - a shift that cut in half a Democratic advantage that had stood at around 100,000 votes after the 2008 election, an election where President Barack Obama carried the Hawkeye State by 10 points.

The latest GOP shift was more pronounced than other recent waves of party switchers in the state. In 2006, a competitive Democratic governor primary forced a net shift of about 25,000 voters in the party's favor, while in 2002 competitive GOP governor and Senate primaries moved 20,000 voters to Republicans.

The new shift is notably bigger than its predecessors, but is likely the result of a leveling effect after the 2008 election.

Iowa Democrats in Iowa increased their registration advantage from 30,000 at the start of 2008 to 110,000 after President Obama's big win. Their current 46,000-voter edge is much more in line with where party registration has been over the last decade -- returning Iowa to swing state status.

4. Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) will make another swing to Iowa at the end of the month, a three-day visit that will mark his third visit to the state this cycle and a continuation of his presidential ambitions.

Pawlenty will kick off his trip on Saturday, July 31. He's slated to attend a breakfast event for state Rep. Steve Lukan (R) in Dubuque, followed by events for state Senate hopeful and former state Rep. Bill Dix (R) in Waverly and state House Minority Leader Kraig Paulsen (R) in Cedar Rapids.

On Sunday, he attends an event with state Rep. Jeff Kaufmann (R) in West Liberty. The trip will be rounded out with an event for the Scott County Lincoln Club in Davenport on Monday morning.

"Governor Pawlenty is working hard to help conservatives around the country win this fall," Pawlenty spokesperson Alex Conant said. "We have great opportunities in Iowa, and Governor Pawlenty is trying to build on that excitement through his new Iowa PAC and this upcoming trip to eastern Iowa."

The trip will be Pawlenty's first to the eastern part of the state, which is Iowa's strongest Democratic area. In November, he spoke at the Iowa Republican Party's annual dinner, and in April he addressed a rally for Iowans for Tax Relief; both events were held in Des Moines.

Pawlenty has made no secret of the fact that he is exploring a run for president in 2012 and his regular trips to Iowa affirm that interest. Remember the old Fix adage: NO politician goes to Iowa by accident.

Pawlenty leads the pack of potential 2012 Republican contenders in visits to Iowa this cycle: as of mid-June, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and South Dakota Sen. John Thune had each visited the state once since November, 2008.

But Pawlenty's name ID remains low in the state: a June Des Moines Register poll showed that 53 percent of likely Republican voters in Iowa didn't know enough about the Minnesota governor to have an opinion about him.

This weekend, Pawlenty makes his third visit this cycle to another key 2012 state: he's scheduled to be in New Hampshire, where he'll be headlining the Strafford County Republican Party summer picnic as well as a $250-a-couple fundraiser for the New Hampshire Republican Party.

5. Fundraising reports continued to trickle in Tuesday, with Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper's (D) Colorado gubernatorial campaign going bargain-basement shopping.

Hickenlooper's camp announced Tuesday that it has spent virtually all of its money on a lengthy television ad buy. It has $1.2 million in ad time reserved, but just $66,000 cash on hand. By buying time early, the Hickenlooper campaign gets the time at a lower rate.

It's an unusual strategy, and one that requires a few things. First, you need to be sure your fundraising won't dry up (probably not an issue for Hickenlooper, who raised a strong $500,000 in June). And second, you need to be able to get out front and make sure the strategy isn't misinterpreted as free-spending on ads when no voters are paying attention.

Sen. Mark Udall's (D-Colo.) 2008 campaign employed a similar strategy, which isn't surprising given that Udall's 2008 campaign manager, Mike Melanson, now fills that same role for Hickenlooper.

In other second-quarter fundraising reports: Montgomery City Councilwoman Martha Roby (R) raised $100,000 between May 13 and June 23 in advance of her July 13 runoff with Rick Barberr-- yes, that Rick Barber-- with the winner moving on to face Alabama Rep. Bobby Bright (D)....Former New Hampshire Rep. Charlie Bass (R) raised a decent $170,000 in the second quarter and banked $360,000 for his run at Senate candidate Paul Hodes' (D) 2nd district seat.....Former Ruth's Chris Steakhouse CEO Craig Miller (R) announced he raised $270,000 and banked $322,000 over the last three months for the Aug. 24 primary to face Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (D-Fla.)....In the Democratic primary for retiring Massachusetts Rep. Bill Delahunt's (D) seat, Norfolk County District Attorney William Keating outraised state Sen. Robert O'Leary $381,000 to $200,000 between April and June, according to the Cape Cod Times....Tennessee state Sen. Roy Herron (D) reported raising $350,000 and banking $1.2 million for a clear primary in retiring Rep. John Tanner's (D) district. Republicans are waging an expensive primary battle.

With Felicia Sonmez and Aaron Blake

By Chris Cillizza  |  July 7, 2010; 7:15 AM ET
Categories:  Morning Fix  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Tea Party = Republican party?
Next: The Fix breaks

Comments

It's always astonishing to watch the party in power forget what put them there. If one recalls the previous election, the Democrats included a rash of ads condemning Bush's "shipping jobs overseas." Not only has the outsourcing lobby quelled any mention of that issue since the Dems have controlled all three branches of government, but incredibly, the language below is their platform in the immigration bill framework. How is it that these parties forget their very ads and posturing that put them over the top in the previous election. To the outside observer, it almost seems like each party likes to figure out a way to forfeit power--strange!!!

A green card will be immediately available to foreign students with an advanced degree from a United States institution of higher education in a field of science, technology, engineering, or mathematics…foreign students will be permitted to enter the United States with immigrant intent if they are a bona fide student so long as they pursue a full course of study at an institution of higher education in a field of science, technology, engineering, or mathematics…

Posted by: junius_booth | July 12, 2010 9:55 PM | Report abuse

I think that we should deport EVERY immigrant, children of immigrants, grandchildren of immigrants on down. Get everyone of them out of MY damn country, every christian, muslin, jew, anglican, catholic, etc. Leave now, every son and daughter of the Irish, Germans, English, Dutch, Italians, Polish, French, Spanish, etc. This place was great before you brought your guns and disease and violence. Yes, Mr. Obama, you must leave too because this is my home and all you immigrants have spoiled, polluted and deforested my home, depleting the land and fouling the air. We didn't INVITE you here and you are an unwelcome crowd of squatters who have murdered most of my family and virtually imprisoned the remainder. LEAVE NOW! I ORDER YOU DEPORTED.

Posted by: ep_Patriot_Vet | July 8, 2010 2:42 PM | Report abuse

What most people don't seem to understand is that immigration is the exclusive province of the Federal Government. The states have no jurisdiction under the Constitution. Obama has no choice, but to go after Arizona. Otherwise, we would have fifty different immigration statures on the books, and no one would know what the law was. The GOP is simply ignoring facts, and choosing to make hay when it can. Obama should clamp down on the boarders, and stop illegal entry. Where was the GOP during the Bush years on this issue? He did nothing to stop it, as the GOP contributors needed cheap labor. Now that jobs are rare, it has become an issue the GOP will try to twist to its advantage. Seal the borders, as terrorists could likewise slip across. Why is it only illegal aliens that use this means of entry?

Posted by: atc333 | July 8, 2010 12:57 AM | Report abuse

Approximately a year ago I was beaten by police in the city of Alameda, ca. I entered a plea of not guilty after $500 for emergency services, and $1200 worth of bail. In a preliminary hearing,officer Ryan Derespini, lied and said that I was "publicly intoxicated" (slurring my words,and etc.) despite the fact that I haven't been drunk since 1973. But Officer Kevin Horikoshi, and Ray Ortega said that I was drunk. But at a supression hearing they didn't even show up because the admitting doctor said that I wasn't drunk. they had no evidence. But they said I was mexican on the police reports, the funny thing is that I am black and fillipino. Don't give these knuckle heads any more discresionary power than the have, they already have too much.

Posted by: LEOMARQUES | July 7, 2010 11:44 PM | Report abuse

The current Law problem between the Federal Government and the Stat of Arizona has nothing to do with the border closing,the immigrants or even the criminals coming into the State. All it has to do with is the current administration looking to get future votes,votes,votes,votes,votes, and votes.That is it in a nutshell. Thing about it. No action over the past 30 or so years and now a top priority.Yeah right.

Posted by: joecarrsr | July 7, 2010 8:19 PM | Report abuse

ICE just informed our community they are no longer picking up illegals that have broken a law serious enough to land them in jail. So in essence, ICE has no intention to do what they are suppose to do and that is to deport these felons. Mexico cannot wait to dump their felons and poor on us. They have opened their jails at our back door knowing our government is just too lame for explanation endangering everyone of us. If the Feds are not doing their job and have no intention to do their job, the people of this nation should rise up in outrage. We need to send these radicals a message in the next election. The Feds are endangering our love ones and this is beyond comprehension. In their deranged minds, they actually believe this will save their sorry tails. I am steamed they would watch this nation suffer to gain politically or even think they would.

Posted by: greatgran1 | July 7, 2010 7:00 PM | Report abuse

This has been one of the better threads. Congratulations to Mark_in_Austin, Win1, and some of the others for shedding light on immigation law. I readily admit to being one of those whom distinctions sometimes elude.

Posted by: Brigade | July 7, 2010 6:22 PM | Report abuse


TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER II > Part VIII > § 1324

(c) Authority to arrest
No officer or person shall have authority to make any arrests for a violation of any provision of this section except officers and employees of the Service designated by the Attorney General, either individually or as a member of a class, and all other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws.


__________________________________

This person has a very good point - perhaps this is the existing law.

In that case, Obama, who is supposed to be this smart kid from Harvard, just made a really stupid legal mistake.

Take away his degree.


.

Posted by: FlowersOfPeace | July 7, 2010 5:53 PM | Report abuse


I am amazed at the lack of HISTORICAL CONTEXT in this immigration debate.


First - in the 80s the democrats in Congress got AMNESTY for ALL ILLEGAL ALIENS -


People either don't remember that - or don't believe it.


The truth is - that AMNESTY just led to MORE immigration because potential illegal aliens believed there was a chance that they could get AMNESTY too.


THE FURTHER TRUTH - all this talk from the democrats about AMNESTY is just ENCOURAGING more illegal immigration because people are thinking they should want to get into this country under the deadline.


So - Obama is making the problem WORSE, not better.


SECOND on the historical context - one of the major justifications for NAFTA was to place jobs in Mexico, so people would have an incentive not to illegally migrate.


Did that work ? I think not.


But no one is saying to re-do NAFTA - so the Mexicans have the jobs in Mexico AND the jobs here.


AT SOME POINT - Americans are going to have to face the question: WHAT IS THE ACCEPTABLE US UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IN THE FACE OF ALL THESE TRADE AGREEMENTS.


Should the trade agreements be re-done - so the US government makes sure all the JOBS STAY HERE.


The present trade agreement situation gets set up OVER A DECADE AGO - THERE ARE NO ADJUSTMENTS - AND THE AMERICAN WORKERS DO NOT DESERVE TO BE STUCK IN A BAD SYSTEM WHICH CLINTON SET UP.


Posted by: FlowersOfPeace | July 7, 2010 5:41 PM | Report abuse

bsimon1,

The fix is simple if people would get their focus off of the physical borders - mandate E-Verify so that all jobs current and future would be checked. 40% of illegal aliens overstayed their visas. But alas, both political parties have no interest in any kind of serious enforcment. But for anyone to say that stopping most illegal immigration is impossible is ludicrous.

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

Federal law, CFR 8 specifically allows states to enforce question, detain and arrest illegal aliens.

Posted by: win1 | July 7, 2010 10:46 AM


____________________________________


Is this true ??? Will someone please verify this ?????


.

Posted by: FlowersOfPeace | July 7, 2010 5:38 PM | Report abuse

This is not about the votes. This is about our country and her laws. The "growing Hispanic population" is because of the fence jumpers. It should not be. Why our politicians agree to tear down our country? Have they lost their minds? This BS must stop. Hispanics and their precious brown skin.... my foot. Of course, they prey on our country history, to bend everything to their advantage. They do not care, that at the same time, they are tearing our country apart, with the consent of democratic party.

Posted by: wggodek | July 7, 2010 5:31 PM | Report abuse

This is not about the votes. This is about our country and her laws. The "growing Hispanic population" is because of the fence jumpers. It should not be. Why our politicians agree to tear down our country? Have they lost their minds? This BS must stop. Hispanics and their precious brown skin.... my foot. Of course, they prey on our country history, to bend everything to their advantage. They do not care, that at the same time, they are tearing our country apart, with the consent of democratic party.

Posted by: wggodek | July 7, 2010 5:31 PM | Report abuse

"Racial Profiling" should be examined closely.


Initially "racial profiling" applied and referred to blacks who were driving down a highway - and were pulled over for no reason.


Everyone has agreed that is not right - and that police need a reason to pull someone over.

However the phrase "racial profiling" has been applied to two other situations - WHICH ARE SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT.

One is at airports - where people of Arab descent may be getting on airplanes. HERE there is A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER - A RISK OF TERRORISM WHICH COULD KILL PEOPLE.

That is totally different from stopping a car -

At the airport, "racial profiling" should be permitted - and clearly SECURITY CONCERNS ARE MORE IMPORTANT.


There is a REASON - SECURITY to give certain people more scrutiny.

That should pass Constitutional tests.

Now - the third application of the phrase "racial profiling" - applied to find out if someone is in this country legally or not.


First - if someone is in this country, born here or naturalized - that person SHOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY to show their license and ASSIST IN LAW ENFORCEMENT.

The illegals have no issue with "racial profiling" - because they are illegal and should be caught.

The ONLY ISSUE with racial profiling is those people who are here legally - and are being burdered by showing their ID card.


So what ? Show it - they should be happy to be in this country.


It is a small burden.


In addition - the very nature of the offense - illegal immigration involves papers - it involves whether you have the right papers or not - THE ONLY WAY TO FIND THAT OUT IS TO LOOK AT PAPERS.


REASON - The reason so many people support this is there is 500,000 illegal aliens in Arizona alone - that is the reason.

The reason is there is AN ATMOSPHERE OF UNLAWFUL BEHAVIOR TO THE TUNE OF 500,000 PEOPLE.

That is the REASON.


it should pass the Constitutional test.


.

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

Of course, we could just line up a bunch of soldiers and/or border patrol agents from the pacific to the atlantic on both borders, hands-across-america style. That would put a dent in the ol' unemployment rate too.
Posted by: bsimon1
_____
I think a workable fence from the Pacific to the Gulf would be okay for now. And who's done it before how about Israel. Remember when there was bombs going off in cofee shops and buses well Israel had enough and build a fence between their country and the West bank. The world community was against it but it worked.. Terror bombings pretty much stopped. "Israeli statistics indicate that the barrier has substantially reduced the number of Palestinian infiltrations and suicide bombings and other attacks on civilians in Israel and in Israeli settlements, and Israeli officials assert that completion of the barrier will make it even more effective in stopping these attacks. "An absolute halt in terrorist activities has been noticed in the West Bank areas where the fence has been constructed"." Now yeah we have a longer border but if Israel can build a fense 436 miles long that works seems to me we can build one along our southern border...

Posted by: sovine08 | July 7, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

If AZ has an immigration problem, work with the feds to enforce the existing law. The problem is not the lack of a law, the problem is the lack of enforcement.
Posted by: bsimon1
_____
And we have come full circle... yes that's the problem. The Feds do not enforce the law!!! You claim they do in MN well I don't know if they do or don't.. but they aren't doing in it Arizona. The Feds don't control the border and they don't enforce immigration law. So Arizona said fine we will. Feds do write immigration law but if they refuse to enforce can states do it? That is the legal issue.. a court will decide. Meanwhile I still say it's cynical for Democrats to oppose Arizona enforcing the law because it will hurt their re-election chances...

Posted by: sovine08 | July 7, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

The SPLC!? It has been so thoroughly discredited that I'm surprised that anybody even mentions it.

Back in 1973, I was sent a letter by the SPLC (actually Julian Bond was the "sender" on their behalf), asking me to become a retainer supporter and send in a monthly contribution that would be used to help blacks secure their civil rights. I believe that blacks should have the same rights as anybody else; and at that time, I think we can say that they were having an uphill struggle for education, fair housing, employment, etc. It seemed like a good idea.

Over the years, it seemed that the SPLC did less and less civil rights work and more and more "Teaching Tolerance" and monitoring "hate groups". I continued to contribute even as I wondered whether my money was going to fluff. At the time most of their "hate groups" were usually associated with militias, some of which actually did commit violent acts, with the usual KKK, WCC, etc. thrown in. I was well aware that the KKK was about as much threat as Ducks Unlimited but I still figured that my relatively small monthly contribution was being used in a manner I could sanction. I did notice, however, that they began to slide very close to calling anybody who disagreed with them on any issue, such as affirmative action, some form of bigot.

My break with the SPLC came when I received in the mail their publication that basically equated with the KKK anybody who believed that the immigration-driven out-of-control population growth in the USA was a bad thing. As a long-time environmentalist, I had long since come to the conclusion that massive immigration was a bad thing for the US and started advocating for the US to enforce our immigration laws and restrict legal immigration.

I wrote the SPLC a letter noting why I no longer would contribute to them and haven't since then. Over the years, I had contributed quite a bit of money, albeit in small contributions.

I have come to the conclusion that the SPLC concluded that the oppression of black people was not exactly a growing enterprise and so they needed a new cause. They made immigration and hate-crimes/hate-speech that new cause. Illegal immigration was growing and people were beginning to notice. If the SPLC could equate opposition to this to denying blacks their civil rights, they could be in business for years to come. If they could criminalize - or try to criminalize - criticism of a lack of enforcement of immigration laws or of replacing citizen workers with cheap foreign labor, better still. Best yet, they wouldn't have to spend any of those millions that they were raking in on court cases. They could simply slime and run, which is cheap in every sense of the word.

It is odd that in boosting immigration, the SPLC is now actually harming blacks - the very group that they were started to assist. Massive third-world immigration is the new Jim Crow as the biz interests hire immigrants, legal and illegal, over black workers.

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

In 2012 there is virtually no candidate that will lose to Pee Wee Herman Obama.
If 18 months has you scared to death, give this naive, incompetent, Communist 30 more months to destroy this country.

Posted by: jillbo18 | July 7, 2010 3:36 PM | Report abuse

truepatriot76,
i apologize to the entire Fix family for mischaracterizing "Plyler" from my memory.
The opinion is indeed a fundamental rights opinion and not a preemption opinion.

It is a muddy opinion, with language like this surplusage:

"Unlike most of the classifications that we have recognized as suspect, entry into this class, by virtue of entry into this country, is the product of voluntary action. Indeed, entry into the class is itself a crime. ... With respect to the actions of the Federal Government, alienage classifications may be intimately related to the conduct of foreign policy, to the federal prerogative to control access to the United States, and to the plenary federal power to determine who has sufficiently manifested his allegiance to become a citizen of the Nation. No State may independently exercise a like power."

It is, in fact, the four Justice dissent that I recalled most clearly without having re-read it. The dissent noted that "Rodriguez" was being implicitly overruled.

"Appellees "lack control" over their illegal residence in this country in the same sense as lawfully resident children lack control over the school district in which their parents reside. Yet in San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973), we declined to review under "heightened scrutiny" a claim that a State discriminated against residents of less wealthy school districts in its provision of educational benefits. There was no suggestion in that case that a child's "lack of responsibility" for his residence in a particular school district had any relevance to the proper standard of review of his claims. The result was that children lawfully here but residing in different counties received different treatment."

The dissent also contains the quotation offered by win1, earlier. The 'conversation" in TX about differential tuition came after the case and was inspired by Powell's concurrence.

The case was decided 5-4, with four different opinions in the majority of five.
The opinion of the court, authored by J. Brennan, created a new class of protection limited to public education by declaring that it is not a right but it is greater than a mere benefit. It is a defective opinion and it skirts the entire sovereignty issue.

Again, I regret having misreported from memory. Please accept my apology.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | July 7, 2010 3:13 PM | Report abuse

The issue is a slam-dunk for those who oppose illegal immigration -- it's always amazed me that neither Party seemed to grasp this, making this an additional nightmare for the Democrats in November. What had already looked like a defeat is turning into a potential massacre.
The reason lies in the bogus data you report about "57% of Americans supporting an earned pathway to citizenship." That finding is the result of push polls that give respondents only one other option: mass deportation. Under those circumstances, Americans -- who hate amnesty -- grudgingly choose it rather than "mass deportation" that evokes imagery of Nazism. But it is a faulty dilemma: "mass deportation" is a chimera. When given the choice of ATTRITION -- which Arizona's SB1070 exemplifies -- incremental self-deportation by the illegal population caused by strict border control and internal tough application of immigration laws, HUGE majorities of Americans select it every time pollsters offer it RATHER THAN AMNESTY. (See polls by Zogby and Rasmussen.) Members of Congress who delude themselves into buying that data from push polls will shortly find themselves looking for work.
By the bye, members of Congress know the real story. Back in 2007, every member of the Senate from both Parties that switched votes and voted against cloture on debate over the last "comprehensive immigration reform bill" (S.1639) was up for re-election in 2008.
If it indeed finally emerges as a major national issue, immigration will give the Republicans a huge political edge.

Posted by: svetistephen | July 7, 2010 3:12 PM | Report abuse

smoses3 writes
"They are trying to tell us that the greatest country on this planet, the U.S. cannot deal with closing and protecting our borders, but 3rd world countrys don't seem to have a problem controlling thiers?"


Like, which 3rd world countries? I can think of quite a few that don't have any control over their borders. Most of those that do are concerned primarily with keeping people IN, not keeping people OUT.

Of course, we could just line up a bunch of soldiers and/or border patrol agents from the pacific to the atlantic on both borders, hands-across-america style. That would put a dent in the ol' unemployment rate too.

Posted by: bsimon1 | July 7, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Dear Sirs,
Remember when the far right demonized UJanet reno for upholding our immigration laws in the Elian Gonzales case?
Remember when John Ashcroft ordered the border patrol to rescue illegal aliens?
President Woodrow Wilson to capture Pancho Villa after that Mexican bandit murdered Americans.
President Herbert Hoover ordered that WW1 vets be dispersed.
Guess which president the Heritage Foundation insists was a good one?
Clifford Spencer

Posted by: yankeefan1925 | July 7, 2010 3:09 PM | Report abuse

"Well I can ask you back if AZ only wants to do what MN is doing why is the Federal government fighting it???"


I refer you to the posts of mark_in_austin1 at 9:54 & 10:53, as he knows the law better than I. My understanding boils down to: Feds get to write immigration law, not states.

If AZ has an immigration problem, work with the feds to enforce the existing law. The problem is not the lack of a law, the problem is the lack of enforcement.


.

Posted by: bsimon1 | July 7, 2010 3:04 PM | Report abuse

If MN is doing it without the law, why does AZ need the law?
_____
Well I can ask you back if AZ only wants to do what MN is doing why is the Federal government fighting it??? I think it's the same you tell me how what AZ wants to do is different?

re: policing the border, I think it is insanely expensive to try to 'man the border' or build a fence that would be effective. A far more effective policy would be to enforce labor laws. That means 2 things: 1) punish employers who knowingly hire people without docs, or with fraudulent docs and 2) make it much, much easier for employers to verify employment docs (green cards, Soc Sec cards, etc). Of those millions that are here illegally, the vast majority just want a job & aren't committing other crimes. If they can't find jobs, they'll leave.
Posted by: bsimon1
____
The Federal gov't isn't enforcing immigration laws and you think they will enforce labor law??? But fine.. why can't we do BOTH??? Besides many crossing the border aren't looking for legal work.. but bringing in drugs or looking to commit crime. How does enforcing labor laws stop them???

Posted by: sovine08 | July 7, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

So, illegal immigration is a problem because the borders cannot possibly be contained...now what is wrong with that statement? They are trying to tell us that the greatest country on this planet, the U.S. cannot deal with closing and protecting our borders, but 3rd world countrys don't seem to have a problem controlling thiers? What a stupid freaking comment, if Washington has been reduced to doing less than 3rd world countrys can then they all need to be fired and we get someone in there that can do it. Idiots all...

Posted by: smoses3 | July 7, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

It is business, both big and small, that doesn't want labor and immigration laws enforced, and that is precisely why they are not.

If you are serious about immigration, demand that your local businesses don't hire undocs. Boycott them. If everyone did this instead of demanding some impossibly expensive and doomed to failure fence, we wouldn't have this problem at all.

I see all kinds of people hiring undocs around here -- as nannies, housekeepers, gardeners, painters, etc, because they work cheaper. The actually subsidize our way of life.

The price of many things, especially food, would skyrocket if they weren't here. Be careful what you wish for. We have created our own trap with this.

Posted by: drindl | July 7, 2010 2:48 PM | Report abuse

sovine08 asks
"Below was what was done.. how is that different than what Arizona wants to do???"

If MN is doing it without the law, why does AZ need the law?

re: policing the border, I think it is insanely expensive to try to 'man the border' or build a fence that would be effective. A far more effective policy would be to enforce labor laws. That means 2 things: 1) punish employers who knowingly hire people without docs, or with fraudulent docs and 2) make it much, much easier for employers to verify employment docs (green cards, Soc Sec cards, etc). Of those millions that are here illegally, the vast majority just want a job & aren't committing other crimes. If they can't find jobs, they'll leave.

Posted by: bsimon1 | July 7, 2010 2:37 PM | Report abuse

And in Kansas:

"Yesterday, Kansas Republican Reps. Jerry Moran and Todd Tiahrt, who are challenging each other for the state’s U.S. Senate seat, faced off in a debate hosted by Topeka’s NBC 27 television station. Both of the men were trying to one-up each other, attempting to prove who is the most right wing.

One contentious issue was immigration, where Moran hit Tiahrt for once supporting the DREAM Act, which would provide undocumented high school graduates a path to legal residency and the chance to attend college. Tiahrt, however, quickly tried to explain why he has come around and now supports punishing children for the choices of their parents:

MORAN: [O]n two occasions, he’s [been] a co-sponsor of legislation called the DREAM Act, which provides amnesty and in-state tuition for children of those who were here illegally. [...]

TIARHT: Well, some time ago — a long time ago — I thought it was compassionate to not punish the children for the parents’ sins."

Compassion is just so yesterday. Just like all the other stuff Jesus taught.

Posted by: drindl | July 7, 2010 2:28 PM | Report abuse

sovine08 writes
"Second if deportations are up it's because of increased border security which started with the Bush administration."

That makes zero sense. If border security has been improved, there should be fewer people that could be deported, which would be reflected in deportation numbers going down. That deportation numbers are UP - and UP in states 1000 miles from the US-Mexico border - implies that policing the border is not effective Posted by: bsimon1
_____
On the contrary it means more people are picked up AFTER they cross the border. They are picked up then deported the problem is to many still slip threw... Policing the border is NOT effective??? You think we would have less of an immigration proble if we didn't police the border???

sovine08 writes
"First a number of cities have already declared themselves "sanctuary cities" because of Liberal/Democrats making illegals safe from immigration law."

In the article to which I linked a few minutes ago, you'll see a note that the cities of Minneapolis and St Paul are some of these 'sanctuary cities' to which you refer. The local police departments have decided that their priority is in suppressing violent crime and property crime, and getting residents to talk to cops is an effective way to implement those policies Posted by: bsimon1
______
Yeah I understand we want people reporting crimes and helping the police but there are better ways than just giving a blanket sanctuary to all illegal aliens living in a certain area. A waver for instance for those who give info that helps catch a criminal seems a better idea.

Look I read your article first off deporting 3000 people over 5 states in a country with 11 MILLION illegal immigrants hardly sounds like a success story. Second did you ever read the Arizona law it sounds like all they want to do what is being done in MN.
Below was what was done.. how is that different than what Arizona wants to do???

"Two of the deportees were family members of a 43-year-old temp worker from Minneapolis. . Earlier this year, her 25-year-old daughter and 22-year-old sister were stopped while driving home from work.
"My sister was pulled over and since she didn't have a license or any sort of ID, she was arrested," Marcelina said. "My daughter was also in the car and was arrested, and then they were deported."
Traffic stops that lead to deportation are increasingly common."

Posted by: sovine08 | July 7, 2010 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Immigration reform alone will not cure the problems on the U.S./Mexico border.

There are three issues that contribute to the chaos and instability that is growing on our border.

- Immigration reform

- Trade agreement reform

- Drug War reform

Fix the screwed up NAFTA and other trade laws that have severely damaged the economies of Mexico and America is the only way to create jobs in both countries so that people aren't needlessly crossing the borders for work.

The War on Drugs creates the biggest problems on the border. smuggling routes funded by the drug cartels do double duty giving illegals routes into America. There would be far fewer violent gangs in America and around the world without the drug profits that both subsidize the proliferation of guns and inspire their demand.

Posted by: aahpat | July 7, 2010 2:06 PM | Report abuse

I might add, immigration was just as big an issue in the last two elections as this one -- and for those of you thinking demagoging this issue will be a winner for Rs, remember who won those last two elections.

Posted by: drindl | July 7, 2010 1:53 PM | Report abuse

With the wingers, they are for 'state's rights' trumping the Fed, except when they are against it, like when it is convenient.

Posted by: drindl | July 7, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Curly4 writes
"Arizona's law only allow the law officers to check WITH THE FEDS if they have reason to believe the suspect is illegal. The law dose not determine if they are it is only the Feds that can determine if the suspect is."

Sounds to me like the AZ law is unnecessary. Please note the story to which I linked at 1:12, below. Here in MN & the 5 state area, deportations are up this year - yet we don't have a law like the one in Arizona. If we can refer undocs to the feds without a law like the one in AZ, why is it necessary in AZ?

Posted by: bsimon1 | July 7, 2010 1:46 PM | Report abuse

sovine08 writes
"Second if deportations are up it's because of increased border security which started with the Bush administration."

That makes zero sense. If border security has been improved, there should be fewer people that could be deported, which would be reflected in deportation numbers going down. That deportation numbers are UP - and UP in states 1000 miles from the US-Mexico border - implies that policing the border is not effective.

sovine08 writes
"First a number of cities have already declared themselves "sanctuary cities" because of Liberal/Democrats making illegals safe from immigration law."

In the article to which I linked a few minutes ago, you'll see a note that the cities of Minneapolis and St Paul are some of these 'sanctuary cities' to which you refer. The local police departments have decided that their priority is in suppressing violent crime and property crime, and getting residents to talk to cops is an effective way to implement those policies. In pursuit of that goal, they are choosing to not focus on immigration status enforcement, as property crime and violent crime are higher priorities. Shouldn't that decision be made by local law enforcement and/or local politicians?

To underscore the point, it is not the intention of these policies to make the cities 'safe' for illegal immigrants. Instead the policies are defined to use police resources in the most productive manner possible - which means targetting criminals conducting the property crime and/or violent crime. If those criminals happen to be here illegally, they'll get that charge added to the list.

Posted by: bsimon1 | July 7, 2010 1:42 PM | Report abuse

asmith1


The Republicans can take a bit of ease with one truth which is emerging: the same incompetent Obama who is running the country - is also running the democratic party.

In particular - the democrats in Arizona are SCREAMING that the Obama lawsuit will hurt their electorial chances in Nov.

Well - the incompetent Obama never thought about the surrounding states - and apparently the voters in the other States affected by illegal immigration are not happy about Obama filing this suit either.

So the Obama lawsuit will hurt democrats in Colorado, Nevada, California and other states.

New Mexico maybe not so much because of the long history of hispanics there.


Obama just seems to be digging a deeper hole for himself - actually astonishing people who are watching him -

Whether one likes Obama or not, the analysis has to be the same - Obama is incompetent, Obama is making major mistakes and it is only a matter of time when something happens in which a seemingly minor issue becomes something really big.

That was the situation at Minerals Management Service - Obama committed to CLEAING UP THE WELL KNOWN PROBLEMS THERE - and for whatever reason - incompetence or Obama's decision to cave into special interests, things WERE NOT DONE - and the oil rig BLEW UP IN THE GULF OF MEXICO.


That is how it works with incompetent people - they get away with all sorts of things - almost encouraging them to be more cavilier.

Also - people around the incompetent people tend to grow a bit more tolerant as the little things appear not to come back to hurt anyone or the organization.

Then something big happens - and only then do people say that it was inevitable, and it was a PATTERN which was almost certainly going to lead to something big.

Just like the safety problems at BP, they got away with hundreds of violations - then the Texas refinery blew up - and still the company was not cleaned up properly.


This is the electoral situation with the democrats - they are trying to convince themselves that they can survive the disasterous decisions on health care - LEADING them to think they can survive a disasterous lawsuit in FAVOR OF ILLEGAL ALIENS.


All this is not isolated

Obama is a disaster -


A complete disaster- and he is destroying the democratic party - perhaps for a generation or longer.

.

Posted by: FlowersOfPeace | July 7, 2010 1:33 PM | Report abuse

The one thing that Obama and his administration complained about the loudest (at least on his news networks) is not in the complaint against Arizona. He always was complaining that the Arizona law could be used for racial profiling. That in not in the law suit. But the same complaint can be used against the Feds when they check (if they check) if an alien is legal. In fact how the Feds know if a person is an alien legal or illegal with checking? Arizona's law only allow the law officers to check WITH THE FEDS if they have reason to believe the suspect is illegal. The law dose not determine if they are it is only the Feds that can determine if the suspect is.

I think every state that is tired of the monetary cost and the crime cost are two high should join the suite on the behalf of Arizona.

Posted by: Curly4 | July 7, 2010 1:26 PM | Report abuse

sovine, I think you're misinformed. I don't see/hear a lot of dems arguing that immigration law shouldn't be enforced. Further, it is my understanding that under the Obama Admin, deportations are UP - the current admin is doing a better job at enforcing the law than the prior admin. If I have time, I'll try to dig up a story from yesterday on the radio, that went into the ways local law enforcement are working with INS/ICE and that self-reporting of immigration violations is actually quite high & here in MN we're clearing out the local & county jails by passing illegal/undocumented immigrants off to ICE for processing & deportation.
Posted by: bsimon1
______
Sorry but I'm not misinformed. First a number of cities have already declared themselves "sanctuary cities" because of Liberal/Democrats making illegals safe from immigration law. Second if deportations are up it's because of increased border security which started with the Bush administration. But that's at the border.. once inside little effort is made to find and deport illegals even though the law says they should be deported. BTW I would hope illegals convicted of a crime and in jail would at least be deported.. but the question is what is the Federal government doing about this before these crimes happen???

Posted by: sovine08 | July 7, 2010 1:21 PM | Report abuse

pmendez, please cite where president Obama, or others you list, argue that federal immigration law should not be enforced.

Here in 'blue' Minnesota, local law enforcement is working with ICE to process & deport people who are here illegally:

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/07/06/ice-jail-screenings/

"In the first four months of 2010, the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency deported 3,127 people from the five-state region that includes Minnesota -- on pace to be one-third higher than last year."

Seems like the Dems in charge of ICE are enforcing the law. Can you back your claims, or are they bunk - or perhaps based on misinformation and/or misunderstanding?

Posted by: bsimon1 | July 7, 2010 1:12 PM | Report abuse

If Congress wants to know where Americans stand on Immigration Reform, add a Referendum to the ballot and then proceed from there.

Obama took a huge risk suing Arizona for doing what he and the DOJ will not. Now that he's stirred up the hornets, white house spokespersons say he now wants to lie low.

Since Obama took office and started playing King, just about everything he's touched has turned to fecal matter. Americans don't trust him or anyone his conspires with him and ready to take back their government in the upcoming elections.

Our forefathers predicted this and Thomas Jefferson so aptly wrote:

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny;

when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

Posted by: asmith1 | July 7, 2010 1:09 PM | Report abuse

pmendez wrote: I'm sick of hearing that latinos are the "fastest growing" segment of the population. The only reason they are growing so fast is the suicidal immigration policies forced on us by the globalists in both parties.
==========================

Not sure that's true. Last I heard, Middle Easterners (mostly Muslim) are the fastest growing, 99% of whom are here legally.


Posted by: MadamDeb | July 7, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

pmendez wrote: I'm sick of hearing that latinos are the "fastest growing" segment of the population. The only reason they are growing so fast is the suicidal immigration policies forced on us by the globalists in both parties.
==========================

Not sure that's true. Last I heard, Middle Easterners (mostly Muslim) are the fastest growing, 99% of whom are here legally.


Posted by: MadamDeb | July 7, 2010 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Whistling Dixie in July: http://bit.ly/99HCVg

Posted by: thedeporteeswife | July 7, 2010 12:36 PM | Report abuse

@BSimmon1:

"I don't see/hear a lot of dems arguing that immigration law shouldn't be enforced."

*************

Oh, so Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Janet Napolitano, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Luis Guitierrez, Chris Van Hollen, Pete Stark, Raul Grijalva, Donna Edwards, Elijah Cummings, Bill Richardson, etc, etc., etc, aren't Democrats?

Posted by: pmendez | July 7, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

sovine08 writes
"What voters want is for the law to be ENFORCED!!! For Democrats not to want to enforce immigration law for something a cynical as it would hurt their re-election chances is what will hurt Democrats in November..."


sovine, I think you're misinformed. I don't see/hear a lot of dems arguing that immigration law shouldn't be enforced. Further, it is my understanding that under the Obama Admin, deportations are UP - the current admin is doing a better job at enforcing the law than the prior admin. If I have time, I'll try to dig up a story from yesterday on the radio, that went into the ways local law enforcement are working with INS/ICE and that self-reporting of immigration violations is actually quite high & here in MN we're clearing out the local & county jails by passing illegal/undocumented immigrants off to ICE for processing & deportation.

Posted by: bsimon1 | July 7, 2010 12:27 PM | Report abuse

The BHO administration advocates and desires open borders. This has been made clear with the suit against AZ. The AZ law carefully follows federal law with specific provisions against profiling. If the suit goes to the Supreme Court the AZ law will probably be struck down since protection of the borders is clearly a federal responsibility. BHO is negligent in his responsibility, the reason that AZ feels a need for their law, but political pandering to the illegals is more important to Obama than his constitutional duties, something for which he should be held accountable.

Posted by: leapin | July 7, 2010 12:22 PM | Report abuse

More on that misnamed organization Fair and its founder John Tanton:

"Today, Tanton stands in the center of a web of anti-immigrant and official English groups. As the founder and publisher of Social Contract Press, Tanton has published books that have helped shaped a nationalist ideology focused on the threat of immigrants to the white, English-speaking population. Social Contract books also stoke fears about immigrants taking over the United States, with research that highlights the rapid rise of Spanish-speaking residents and related socioeconomic problems, while ignoring research that points to the positive contributions of immigrants. In addition to FAIR, where he still is a board member, Tanton has been a central player in an array of anti-immigrant, nationalist groups and institutes, including Pro English, U.S. Inc., Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), U.S. English, and Numbers USA. Funding for these and other organizations in which Tanton is a key figure, often flows through the organization, U.S. Inc. (7) (8)

According to Tolerance.org, a project of the Southern Poverty Law Center: "The organized anti-immigration 'movement' is almost entirely the handiwork of one man, Michigan activist John. H. Tanton." In June 2002, it listed thirteen groups that formed part of the "loose-knit Tanton network." The following groups were founded and funded (through U.S. Inc.) by Tanton: Center for Immigration Studies, Federation for American Immigration Reform, NumbersUSA, Pro English, Social Contract Press, U.S. English, and U.S. Inc. Others, such as American Immigration Control Foundation, American Patrol/Voices of Citizens Together, Californians for Population Stabilization, ProjectUSA, are part of the Tanton network because their funding has been channeled through U.S. Inc. Another organization cited by Tolerance.Org, as part of the network is Population-Environment Balance, because Tanton had joined its board. "Wikipedia

Posted by: BobSanderson | July 7, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

What voters want is for the law to be ENFORCED!!! For Democrats not to want to enforce immigration law for something a cynical as it would hurt their re-election chances is what will hurt Democrats in November...

Posted by: sovine08 | July 7, 2010 12:19 PM | Report abuse

I'm sick of hearing that latinos are the "fastest growing" segment of the population.

The only reason they are growing so fast is the suicidal immigration policies forced on us by the globalists in both parties.

Stop immigration - legal and illegal - and latinos stop growing as a power block.

Posted by: pmendez | July 7, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Obama continues his war on the American people. It is not surprising that Democratic candidates are distancing themselves from his, and the Reed/Pelosi, toxic policies. When we need leadership (Gulf, economy, Mexican state-sponsored invasion, foreign wars to support corrupt regimes), we get blame, demonization, and lawsuits.

Posted by: icmop911 | July 7, 2010 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Illegal Immigration has become a fiery defining issue across the country. Long before President Obama came to power the federal government has rigorously refused to enforce our immigration laws since 1986. However, it is only in the last 25 years that America has been under assault by a foreign force of illegal workers and families.

The US Constitution text of Article IV, Section 4:

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature.
But we have been invaded by 20 to 30 million foreign nationals, not the numbers of 12 million that has been as stated continuously by the overwhelming Liberal press. According to FAIR, Illegal Immigration expenditures are a $113 Billion annual Drain on U.S. Taxpayers.

This new study released today by FAIR is the most comprehensive analysis of how much the estimated millions of illegal aliens and their U.S.-born children costs federal, state and local governments. Just think how much this huge amount of money would go towards cutting the U.S. deficit—that has climbed to 13 trillion dollars? You can read the report at (FAIR) Federation for American Immigration Reform. An extra $60 billion dollars are earned by illegal aliens in the U.S. each year. One of Mexico's largest revenue streams (after exports and oil sales) consists of money sent home by legal immigrants and illegal aliens working in America.

It’s impossible to calculate or list the welfare programs, health treatment, education and prison incarceration where these billions of dollars are drained. Hundreds of other concealed programs have their costs that must include the U.S. Border Patrol and the pretense of the border fence. The 2006 Border fence was for two fences not ONE. Even the HMS Titanic could not survive this massive costly iceberg hidden beneath the fiscal sea.

The state of Arizona is under attack by our own government in suing over the new policing law SB 1070. This is obviously a political ploy by the Liberal Czars in the administration to force through another devastating—AMNESTY. There will be progressive demise of anybody, who is flaunting a pro-amnesty philosophy by November. Political entities are on notice by the Tea Party and a very commanding group of voters in November.

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) will be ejected first, as he has carried out his power to weaken E-Verify, federal local detainment law 287(g. On a state level many Democratic Senators and representatives will be joining Reid in the American workers jobless line. City governors such as mayors should join the party as well. Demand they follow the "Rule of Law" People who comment should stand up to the plate and bombard their federal lawmakers at 202-224-3121 NumbersUSA has an immigration grading system showing who should not be reelected. Facts, figures and other statistics at Immigration Counters

Posted by: infinity555 | July 7, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse

"First of all, Plyler v. Doe was a fundamental rights case, not a pre-emption case. There's longstanding caselaw starting with Hines v. Davidowitz that clearly gives the federal government exclusive province in immigration. Second of all, this talk about the securing the borders with a fence is ludicrous. The only way to stop immigration is to make employers either criminally or civilly liable for hiring illegal immigrants"

exactly.

Posted by: drindl | July 7, 2010 12:00 PM | Report abuse

The liberal, racist journalist Cynthia Tucker has indicated that Steele obtained his job through affirmative action. Of course if anyone insinuated that a black liberal only holds a job because of AA there would be hell to pay. But now that Cynthia has made the politically incorrect into correct (who can keep track) it calls into question if she thinks the same of Obama. It could also be applied to herself.

Posted by: leapin | July 7, 2010 11:46 AM | Report abuse

First of all, Plyler v. Doe was a fundamental rights case, not a pre-emption case. There's longstanding caselaw starting with Hines v. Davidowitz that clearly gives the federal government exclusive province in immigration. Second of all, this talk about the securing the borders with a fence is ludicrous. The only way to stop immigration is to make employers either criminally or civilly liable for hiring illegal immigrants--but neither party is willing to go there because they are weak willed.

Posted by: truepatriot76 | July 7, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Washington has to oppose the will of the people of Arizona, otherwise Obama would have to avoid entering Arizona for fear of prosecution for being and illegal immigrant. Maybe he should recuse himself from this issue.

Posted by: HuguesdePayens | July 7, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Washington has to oppose the will of the people of Arizona, otherwise Obama would have to avoid entering Arizona for fear of prosecution for being and illegal immigrant. Maybe he should recuse himself from this issue.

Posted by: HuguesdePayens | July 7, 2010 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Well, immigration is a hot button issue for illegal Hispanics all right, but it isn't supported by Hispanics with self-esteem and individual responsibility morals.

Posted by: EllEyeBee | July 7, 2010 11:37 AM | Report abuse

I believe that WaPo has well-documented its liberal slant. WaPo planted a blogger as a conservate. Other blogs and information sites have lied about republican positions and comments. Chris Mathews lied about the meaning of Angle's comments. We are allowing Obama to frame the question about states' rights with regard to gun laws and its right to remove illegals. Obama is arguing for more federal control. Brewer can frame the argument as preservation of AZ rights to abide by the will of its residents, much like same sex relations. Obama's push for more federal control is manifested in Obamacare. This is really a battle of the feds vs states. This is the common thread of Obama's agenda, not specific to immigration. Holder is assailing the states on another front, the oil spill and the mosque at ground zero, and control of the National Guard and remaining mute on the issues of boycotts against AZ. It also relates to his handling of the New Black Panthers, his control of police chiefs, and control of the interpretation of racial profiling and hate speech. If the states do not join with AZ in its stance, these states will fall by precedent. Under the Constitutional provision, AZ can now form a militia, deputize citizens to protect its borders.
The Republican must filibuster Kagan.

Posted by: rushyoungberg | July 7, 2010 11:36 AM | Report abuse

I believe that WaPo has well-documented its liberal slant. WaPo planted a blogger as a conservate. Other blogs and information sites have lied about republican positions and comments. Chris Mathews lied about the meaning of Angle's comments. We are allowing Obama to frame the question about states' rights with regard to gun laws and its right to remove illegals. Obama is arguing for more federal control. Brewer can frame the argument as preservation of AZ rights to abide by the will of its residents, much like same sex relations. Obama's push for more federal control is manifested in Obamacare. This is really a battle of the feds vs states. This is the common thread of Obama's agenda, not specific to immigration. Holder is assailing the states on another front, the oil spill and the mosque at ground zero, and control of the National Guard and remaining mute on the issues of boycotts against AZ. It also relates to his handling of the New Black Panthers, his control of police chiefs, and control of the interpretation of racial profiling and hate speech. If the states do not join with AZ in its stance, these states will fall by precendent.

Posted by: rushyoungberg | July 7, 2010 11:32 AM | Report abuse

"And, on the question of whether the state government should be allowed to make its own laws on immigration or whether that should be left up to the federal government, the public was deeply divided, with 46 percent choosing states and 52 percent opting for the federal government."


How can anyone report this without the slightest sane comment? CC are you there?

----


Maybe there should be a followup survey with an additional question sponsored by the Fix for the 46% who want state immigration laws:

Should the states enforce them with white Republican militias to make sure the job is done right?
------
What would be left of the United States besides 4th of July fireworks, a Statue of Liberty (in the nation-state of New York) and a Liberty Bell (in the New Commonwealth of Penn). Check relevant immigration laws before initiating cross border travel!


Boy OH Boy would this mean trouble for Democrats!

Posted by: BobSanderson | July 7, 2010 11:28 AM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin:"During the RWR Admin, the Supremes ruled that TX school districts could not charge out-of-district tuition to undocs' kids, b/c that would constitute a state immigration policy."
--------------

The case was Pyler v. Doe, and you haven't read the case if that is what you believe it says.

In fact, Pyler v. Doe specifically mentioned that states do have a right.

"Although the State has no direct interest in controlling entry into this country, that interest being one reserved by the Constitution to the Federal Government, unchecked unlawful migration might impair the State's economy generally, or the State's ability to provide some important service. Despite the exclusive federal control of this Nation's borders, we cannot conclude that the States are without any power to deter the influx of persons entering the United States against federal law, and whose numbers might have a discernible impact on traditional state concerns. See De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. at 354-356."

Posted by: win1 | July 7, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin :"States CAN enforce federal immigration laws. States CANNOT make their own immigration laws."
---------------------

Arizona's law does not regulate immigration. Arizona's law requires that law enforcement defer to the federal government on immigration status.

Arizona's law does not legislate who can stay or enter the country legally, the law only says that those here illegally will be prosecuted.

Posted by: win1 | July 7, 2010 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Mandate E-Verify to check all jobs, current and future in the US. Additionally, force Social Security and the IRS to root out identity theft. After many of the illegal population has left the US, then and only then will anyone start to discuss what to do about the ones that remain.

Posted by: merbc | July 7, 2010 11:20 AM | Report abuse

"... If anyone didn't realize what the tea party republicans stand for, the above should be clear.

These are the same people who called for mass murder / civil war over the health care bill - which does in what every last industrialized nation does - guarantee health care as a right.

Its simple - the repubs/tea party have not lost their way. ...
Posted by: SJames6621 | July 7, 2010 10:32 AM"

The above would be funny, if it were not so sad.

When has treason became legal and acceptable? As I understand it, treason against the American People is still punishable by death; indeed, this is the only just punishment for those working to oppose the will of the American People. There is simply no higher crime which I can conceive of than thwarting the will of the people.

Posted by: JohnFSmith | July 7, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse

Maybe the Ming Dynasty will help us build a 2000 mile long border wall?

"Securing" the border is a fantasy, unless the border state citizens want to set up baracks and sleep/eat/live there 24/7. Not to mention expensive. let AZ live in Fantasy Land all they want, but don't use my tax money to build some placebo border "walls" that won't do sh}T. We're already wasting our taxpayer dollars on welfare, bailouts, two unwinnable wars for ungrateful muslim nations, charter schools, and a million other snipe hunts.

Posted by: Please_Fix_VAs_Roads | July 7, 2010 11:15 AM | Report abuse

win1, a more recent example of the distinction: During the RWR Admin, the Supremes ruled that TX school districts could not charge out-of-district tuition to undocs' kids, b/c that would constitute a state immigration policy. Forget barring undoc kids from schools - TX was not trying to do that - it just wanted to treat undoc kids like cross district transfers, since they were not "legally" residents of the school district.
TX's position made sense to me, but the Constitution could be read to make that position an immigration law outside the power of a state. I then proposed to our congressional delegation that Congress authorize the charging of tuition at non-resident rates to illegal aliens. There was no will to do that. It would be a great relief in the southwest border states if a modest tuition could be charged to undocs, treating them like out-of-district students.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | July 7, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Enough is enough: if you came here illegaly, you are a criminal. If you are an employer that hired illegals, you are also a criminal. The good times are over.

Since the federal government refuses to secure our borders, we will secure our borders by ourselves.

How will we do that ? By bringing back the militias and shooting anyone who illegaly crosses our border.

Posted by: princeps2 | July 7, 2010 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Another part of the federal immigration law that prohibits interference with state and local government verifying immigration status.

8 USC 1644

"Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, no State or local government entity may be prohibited, or in any way restricted, from sending to or receiving from the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an alien in the United States."

Posted by: win1 | July 7, 2010 11:09 AM | Report abuse

Holders filing makes it sound like illegal immigration is a federal immigration policy.

DUH.

Posted by: win1 | July 7, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

win1 posted:

This section of the immigration law gives states and local governments the authority to enforce immigration law against illegal aliens.

Again, I agree, and posted the same early this morning.

States CAN enforce federal immigration laws. States CANNOT make their own immigration laws.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | July 7, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

This section of the immigration law gives states and local governments the authority to enforce immigration law against illegal aliens.

The DHS reports repeatedly say that state and local law enforcement must be involved for effective immigration enforcement. The interior is to big for just the federal government to enforce laws, which is why state government questions, detains, and arrests on many federal laws.

8 USC 1357

"(9) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require any State or political subdivision of a State to enter into an agreement with the Attorney General under this subsection. (10) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require an agreement under this subsection in order for any officer or employee of a State or political subdivision of a State - (A) to communicate with the Attorney General regarding the immigration status of any individual, including reporting knowledge that a particular alien is not lawfully present in the United States; or (B) otherwise to cooperate with the Attorney General in the identification, apprehension, detention, or removal of aliens not lawfully present in the United States."

Posted by: win1 | July 7, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Regardless of how the Obama Administration, the Media, cheap labor interests or the illegal aliens themselves try to spin the narratives, this isn't about race. It's about the will of the people, states rights and sovereignty. The Founders were intent that the will of America's Citizens serve as the guidance in our governance. Indeed, what benefit would derive from casting off the yolk of the Crown, if we were only going to replace it with the petty oppressions and usurpation's of self serving politicians, bureaucrats and an elitist minority?

By definition, the Crown was little more than an elitist minority. The Founding Fathers pledged their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor, they fought against an elitist minority that sought to dictate how America's Citizens would conduct their lives. If America's Citizens, the overwhelming majority of whom support Arizona's SB 1070 Legislation, cannot say NO to an amnesty, say NO to the invasion that threatens our social, economic and environmental future, how have we benefited from the sacrifices we've made in pursuit of democracy? Arguably, an Administration and Courts that refuse to honor the will of America's citizens, that our border be secured and our immigration enforced, has adbicated it's authority in principal and in practice, and dishonors our Constitution and the Founders of our nation. Our Founding Fathers, recognizing the greed and self interests of Politicians and Bureaucrats, indeed, even the Clergy, were prescient in their provision of our 2nd. Amendment against such time as the government and the courts no longer felt compelled to accept the will of the people as their guidance. Clearly, our nation was founded on the premise that the will of the people, the governed, should serve as the final arbiter in our governance. Why then should we allow government and the courts to 'overrule' our will, and oppress the citizens of Arizona, and the vast majority of America's citizens who support enforcement based solutions to the egregious problem of illegal immigration?

If this Administration and the Courts can willy-nilly usurp or undermine the will of the people, how then can we continue the charade that we are a democracy? If we the people cannot say NO to governmental and Judicial oppressions and overreaching, how is our lot any different than those who suffer under socialist empire or despotism? If the will of the people still matters, by what mechanism are we allowed to re-assert control over those who usurp our will under the guise of constitutional mandate? When do the Citizens of the United States have the right to just say 'NO'!, and make it stick?

Posted by: edweirdness | July 7, 2010 10:57 AM | Report abuse

In a recess appointment (to circumvent Senate hearings in which the radical views of his appointee would have been highlighted by Republican senators) Obama has appointed Donald Berwick to head up the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. He will be in charge of implementing the $500 Billion in cuts envisioned by ObamaCare (if they happen).

Milton Wolf has dug up some of Mr. Berwick's more colorful proclamations. Among them:
Any health care funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized and humane must, MUST redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent health care is, by definition, redistributional.
That is, despite everything the Obamunists claimed during the Health Care debate, ObamaCare is socialism. And it is just the beginning. What Berwick really admires is Britain's decrepit, bureaucratic National Health Service.

I am romantic about the [British] National Health Service; I love it.
Wolf notes that the imposition of NHS-style controls in the USA would lead to an additional 125,000 cancer deaths per year. But, that's okay, because sick and old people are not worth saving, or so Zeke Emanuel tells us.

And in Massachusetts, where RomneyCare (the state version of ObamaCare) is crashing and burning, a state legislator has introduced a bill to make it illegal to practice medicine outside of the Government Health Care system.

Posted by: Moonbat | July 7, 2010 10:56 AM | Report abuse

**************************************************************************************
Posted by: win1
Federal law, CFR 8 specifically allows states to enforce question, detain and arrest illegal aliens.
**************************************************************************************

I hope those states have a jail rooms for 12 million people, if they are going to arrest them.
Or they are going to whine to Obama about that also.

Posted by: BOBSTERII | July 7, 2010 10:54 AM | Report abuse

win1 posted:

mark_in_austinJ:"But Congress has never authorized the states to criminalize, as a matter of state law, immigration violations. I think the AZ statute goes beyond the principles enunciated in the "Chy Lung" case, as well."
-------------------
According to current immigration law, Arizona may arrest both illegal aliens for infraction of federal immigration laws, both criminal and misdemeanor.

You and I are in complete agreement about all that you wrote.

Mypoin is that the authority derives from federal law and cannot derive from the superimposition of a state law, even if the state law mirrors the federal law. This is because states are sovereign with regard to their criminal statutes, but they cannot extend that power to make a sovereign criminal law into the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress, without congressional authorization. I fear the distinction is eluding many of you.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | July 7, 2010 10:53 AM | Report abuse

What would happen if federal government blocks the US-MEXICAN border and temporarely prohibits prosecution of all illegal immigrants in USA?
Would Arizona government still try to push their fake agenda?
I can bet anybody that they could have done this while Bush and Cheney were dictating this country but they knew that would burry republicans forever.

Posted by: BOBSTERII | July 7, 2010 10:47 AM | Report abuse

Federal law, CFR 8 specifically allows states to enforce question, detain and arrest illegal aliens.

Posted by: win1 | July 7, 2010 10:46 AM | Report abuse

AndyR3:"#1-The fact is that the constitution in Article 1 section 8 is clear that naturalization of people is the responsibility of the FEDERAL government."
-----------------

Arizona's law does not interfere with naturalization.

In fact the Constitution says that Congress shall have the power to "establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States"

Congress has done so. However, this does not mean that states cannot enforce federal immigration law, including immigration enforcement against illegal aliens.

Posted by: win1 | July 7, 2010 10:38 AM | Report abuse

Quote


Why keep kidding ourselves to keep from facing up to the reality?

It is simply all over but the revolution. For decades, our public and political servants have distanced themselves from the American People. They ignore 60, 70, 80%, and more, of the people to represent some ill defined minority or even their own wishes, desires and paths.

These people need to go. If they are unwilling or unable to represent the will of the majority of American Citizens, then they need to go by way of the gallows.

Posted by: JohnFSmith | July 7, 2010 10:07 AM | Report abuse

UNquote

If anyone didn't realize what the tea party republicans stand for, the above should be clear.

These are the same people who called for mass murder / civil war over the health care bill - which does in what every last industrialized nation does - guarantee health care as a right.

Its simple - the repubs/tea party have not lost their way.

They believe in MASS MURDER TO GET THEIR WAY.

The quoted comment of course comes from the same people who in past elections talked about moral values, while they continue to drive 3000 gay kids - a 9/11 every year - to suicide

REminds me of how Hitler came to power - the world economy ccllapsed due to wall street shenanagans, and desperate people turned to the hatred - that time of the JEWS, AND ELECTED HITLER.

This is the playbook of the republicans - let the economy be destroyed - I suspect they wanted that to happen, blame the people who are trying to fix it, and call for mass murder

Do you think that is the way America should operate?

Posted by: SJames6621 | July 7, 2010 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Canadianguy,
According to the Governor of Arizona you probably are a drug mule bringing in illegal maple syrup from that den of crime and debauchery to our north. That is the real reason why you didn't get the green card (that and the olympic gold medal hockey game).

Posted by: AndyR3 | July 7, 2010 10:27 AM | Report abuse

There are no problems confronting America's citizens and taxpayers that would not be measurably improved by securing our borders and enforcing our immigration laws. Overpopulation, congestion, urban sprawl, diminishing resources, crumbling infrastructure, lack of affordable housing, vanishing farm land and green space, overcrowded schools and hospitals, water and energy shortages, crime, pollution, depressed wages, increased tax burdens, the balkanization of our communities, the marginalization of American workers, taxpayers and voters, the overall decline in quality of life, are all the result of unconstrained immigration. Too many people competing for the same limited resources is NOT sane, sustainable social, economic or environmental policy. Indeed, stabilizing the egregious population growth that occurs through out-of-control illegal immigration and anchor baby policies would do more immediately to address our carbon footprint than decades of any Cap and Trade legislation. Likewise, all of the green energy alternatives the administration is citing as the way forward require vast amount of land and water if they are to become a viable alternative to hydrocarbons. Bear in mind that, save for using coal, few hydrocarbons are really the result of energy production. Solar, wind, hydro, bio-fuels, geo-thermal, all require lots of increasingly expensive and rare real estate and water if they are to be viable as consumer and investor options to oil. Real estate and water that are increasingly in short supply as the result of egregious overpopulation resulting from unconstrained immigration. Investors will see no benefit in funding 'green alternatives' that are more resource intensive, especially if those energy alternatives are more expensive and problematic for consumers to use. Consumers likewise see little value in paying higher prices for energy alternatives that will only be consumed by immigration and population growth before the energy products reach the consumer market. Reducing energy costs is what motivates consumers and investors, and our immigration policies presently run contrary to the interests of America's workers, taxpayers, voters, and our economic and environmental interests in general.

Posted by: edweirdness | July 7, 2010 10:25 AM | Report abuse

In initiating this lawsuit against Arizona the President of the United States has declared war on law abiding citizens who have demanded that the Federal Government enforce Immigration Laws. Obama is the most racist President this country has had. He has allowed terrorist groups like the Black Panthers to violate civil rights laws. Now we know Obama's Department of Justice has policies to allow minorities to violate civil rights laws and avoid prosecution. Americans know this President has violated his Oath of Office. If he were a Republican the media and left wing would be demanding IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS. Its time for the media to do what is right and report the truth about this Administration and their crimes against the American people.

Posted by: quillerm | July 7, 2010 10:23 AM | Report abuse

mark_in_austinJ:"But Congress has never authorized the states to criminalize, as a matter of state law, immigration violations. I think the AZ statute goes beyond the principles enunciated in the "Chy Lung" case, as well."
-------------------
According to current immigration law, Arizona may arrest both illegal aliens for infraction of federal immigration laws, both criminal and misdemeanor.

The trespass charges are misdemeanor in Arizona, unless the illegal alien has weapons, drugs etc, or has already agreed to leave the US under federal law or on a second charge.


Posted by: win1 | July 7, 2010 10:22 AM | Report abuse

Democrats Vs Democrats is just the same as Tea Party Vs Republicans.

DINO Democrats are facing strong Opposition and RINO Republicans are too.

What's not to understand?

Posted by: ddoiron1 | July 7, 2010 10:21 AM | Report abuse

There is ONE MAJOR PROBLEM IN THIS DEBATE


We have a bunch of democratic focus groups which have come up with the phrase "comprehensive immigration reform"

Well - this is just another case of the democrats deceiving themselves.

If the democrats think that polls asking people if they "support comprehensive immigration reform" mean anything - then they are fooling themselves.

When MOST PEOPLE hear "comprehensive immigration reform" they are thinking STOP ILLEGAL ALIENS AND SEND THEM BACK.

So, to answer the polls, people who want to stop illegals are saying they support "comprehensive" reform.


But the democrats - in JUST ANOTHER FRAUD - are saying privately that "comprehensive immigration reform" means AMNESTY.

No one wants amnesty except the radical hispanic groups - and the radical people around Obama - and Obama.


It is just a DISGRACE that we have an administration that is so DISMISSIVE of what the American People want.


The sentiment that Obama is SEEKING TO IMPOSE HIS LEFT WING AGENDA ON THIS NATION has a great deal of validity.

Clear and simple - Obama's motives are NOT honorable - his priorities are in the WRONG PLACE.

Obama approaches WAY TO MANY ISSUES IN TERMS OF A "US VS THEM" context.

But right now Obama is President of the entire nation - not just certain groups.

For someone who promised to be post-partisan, Obama has been a FRAUD to the nation.

This has nothing to do with the economy - or any conditions that existed before Obama came in - it has to do with OBAMA'S OWN CONDUCT IN OFFICE - OBAMA'S OWN CHOICES.

It was SOLELY WITHIN OBAMA'S CHOICES whether to stick to his campaign promises and campaign themes or NOT.

Obama CHOSE TO BE A FRAUD TO HIS OWN CAMPAIGN.


Clear and simple - that is why the democrats should lose the election this year, Obama should be IMPEACHED - AND SENT OUT OF OFFICE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.


.

Posted by: FlowersOfPeace | July 7, 2010 10:20 AM | Report abuse

This week:

Obama illegally bypasses the Senate to appoint a new Medifraud Obamacare Czar.

He directs Holder to sue AZ because of the ineptness of his administration and the Democrat Congress.

What's next?

1) Obama and the Dems bypass the Senate to appoint Fidel Calderon to re-write America's immigration policies.

2) Obama and the communist Democrats declare war against America; SEIU thugs and Obama's 20 million man illegal alien armies are deployed to US neighborhoods to subjugate American national opponents.

3) November awaits massive rejection of Obama's and the Dem's radical subversive anti American plans for the USA.

Posted by: Patriot12 | July 7, 2010 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Both political parties want the status quo to continue OR a massive amnesty. But talk about halting illegal immigration from either party, where you find it, conveniently ignores E-Verify. E-Verify is the most effective, and most cost-effective way of halting illegal immigration. Make it mandatory for all employers to check all jobs, current and future, within a certain prescribed time frame. When this has been in effect for a number of years, coupled with true efforts on the part of Social Security and the IRS to root out the millions of cases of identity theft, AND when much of the illegal population has left the US, then and only then can the people entertain any sort of discussion about granting illegals any sort of legal status.

Posted by: merbc | July 7, 2010 10:18 AM | Report abuse

I am a Canadian. I work for an American company, pay American taxes, American health care costs, I have an American mortgage, pay my bills on time, etc. But going the LEGAL route of getting a green card is an absolute nightmare. I can see why people do it illegally, but there needs to be reform on doing it legally. Because of one debatable mistake on one form, 6 months of green card effort by myself and my employer went up in smoke - we have to do it all over again. That's just not right. There should be some incentive (and streamlining) for those who are honestly trying to contribute to this country and live here legally.

Posted by: canadianguy | July 7, 2010 10:18 AM | Report abuse

Reagan Definitely the First!

George H.W. Bush pushed it with Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), where George H.W. Bush granted amnesty to 2.6 million illegals.

George W Bush wanted Amnesty but a National Protest over the already 3 time loser Amnesty Programs caused it to fail miserably.

Now Democrats are taking up the effort.

Posted by: ddoiron1 | July 7, 2010 10:13 AM | Report abuse

AndyR,
If the higher number of D registered mattered so much why do the current crop of D prospects run attack ads in summer many of which are anti-Washington (Coln) or attack the former governor of Iowa (Branstead) for spending too much while he was governor (Culver ads). Who do you think those ads are geared for in the first place? I dare say they are geared toward D, but rather toward swing voters who are angry at Washington for spending too much. It’s kind of hard running against your own party.

Posted by: sliowa1 | July 7, 2010 10:05 AM | Report abuse

Coupling long term solutions to some kind of guest worker program would go a long way towards resolving this.

Well, I've work to do, so I'll leave 37th to spam the boards today.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | July 7, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

The last amnesty was full of application fraud.

Multiple illegal aliens would bring in identical documents to "prove" that they had been in the US and were therefore eligible. They used the same illegally obtained social security number to claim work and social security benefits.

The amnesty failed in its purpose of stopping illegal immigration, the promised enforcement never came.

OIG and GAO reports on the amnesty showed rampant fraud led to both legalization and naturalization of many that were not eligible, including criminals.

Posted by: win1 | July 7, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

Obama is dividing this country. Rather than see what he can do to support his state that he only has 50 United states with a few commonwealths. He is spending money fighting his own state rather than spending money to help his state. Way to pick your fights Obama.

Posted by: OptionJohn | July 7, 2010 10:02 AM | Report abuse

Are you ready for some football (political)..??

Posted by: newbeeboy | July 7, 2010 10:02 AM | Report abuse

IMMIGRATION HAS TO BE LOOKED AT IN TERMS OF ECONOMIC INCENTIVES


There are way too many incentives for the illegal aliens to come here.


Somehow, the nation has to REDUCE these incentives.

First - the "anchor baby" situation has to be corrected. This may require a Constitutional Amendment.

It is just too easy for an 18 or 19 year old in another country to say to themselves that they will come to the US, have a baby, and when that baby turns 18, the parents can become CITIZENS.


We are offering the young of the other countries a PATH TO CITIZENSHIP BY AGE 38.

That is ridiculous.


>>>>>>> Illegal aliens should not be allowed to have mortgages - that is crazy - they should be buying houses in their home country - we are just encouraging people to settle down in this country this way.

>>>>>> Mexico has an economic benefit to having its illegals here - because the aliens send money back to Mexico.


However, those same aliens use services in this country - hospitals and schools.

Mexico SHOULD BE BILLED FOR THE SERVICES OF ITS ALIENS IN THE US.


By that Mexico will have LESS INCENTIVE to have people here in the US.

Also, illegal aliens should be BILLED FOR THE SERVICES THEY USE -

There is a perception that the illegal aliens are getting a free ride on government services - AND not paying their share of taxes -

This issue should be addressed.

Posted by: FlowersOfPeace | July 7, 2010 9:59 AM | Report abuse

I'm a little surprised the morning fix doesn't include a link to this story:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/06/AR2010070605165.html

bylined by Cillizza & Dan Balz, where they dig into some of the problems the Repubs are having this year, particularly with Steele as chairman. They even quote an anonymous Repub who notes there are races they could lose this year because of the disarray in the party.

Posted by: bsimon1 | July 7, 2010 9:58 AM | Report abuse

Yes nice historical context about the 80's you glaringly left out your dear leader Ronald Reagan signed that amnesty bill. Just thought I'd give you some historical context.

Posted by: DickVanstone | July 7, 2010 9:56 AM | Report abuse

thardman, in the southwest, whenever cops arrest a perp who turns out to be an IA they gladly turn the perp over to the feds b/c it clears the docket. The Congress has indeed authorized all law enforcement officers to act in this way when they are enforcing otherwise valid state criminal laws.

But Congress has never authorized the states to criminalize, as a matter of state law, immigration violations. I think the AZ statute goes beyond the principles enunciated in the "Chy Lung" case, as well.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | July 7, 2010 9:54 AM | Report abuse

Immigration reform is a critical issue that Obama must address in his first term. If our politicians can resist acting like children and thinking exclusively who their vote will impact the mid-term and 2012 Latino vote and instead debate the issues on their merits, we might have a chance of passing important and fair legislation...alright, I am starting to laugh at the idea of our politicians behaving like adults. Never mind, I am sure that the legislation will be full of pandering and ultimately passed so that the Democrats can claim a legislative victory and the Republicans have something to complain about.


For another take on the immigration debate which is both serious and wicked FUNNY, check out this link:


http://www.dailygoat.com/2010/06/arizona-immigration-law-lead-increase-harassment-purchases-barry-manilow-wall-posters/

Posted by: eye95 | July 7, 2010 9:54 AM | Report abuse

Shame on you President Obama for siding with illegals and Mexico on this issue rather than supporting a State that is trying to enforce immigration law and protect its citizens. I know how I feel about this issue. Someone is going to have to explain to me how making, in this floundering economy, 12-20 million illegal, (mostly poor and uneducated), Mexicans American citizens will help this country. This has never been a racial issue. It is a national security and an economic security issue. Candidates who place more emphasis on certain Hispanic voters rather than the majority of voters in this country will pay at the polls. As for me, I voted for you once. I won't make the same mistake twice.

Posted by: 78vette | July 7, 2010 9:53 AM | Report abuse

Shame on you President Obama for siding with illegals and Mexico on this issue rather than supporting a State that is trying to enforce immigration law and protect its citizens. I know how I feel about this issue. Someone is going to have to explain to me how making, in this floundering economy, 12-20 million illegal, (mostly poor and uneducated), Mexicans American citizens will help this country. This has never been a racial issue. It is a national security and an economic security issue. Candidates who place more emphasis on certain Hispanic voters rather than the majority of voters in this country will pay at the polls. As for me, I voted for you once. I won't make the same mistake twice.

Posted by: 78vette | July 7, 2010 9:53 AM | Report abuse

Arizona did not make an immigration law.

Arizona made a law which allowed them to enforce the Federal immigration law.

The federal courts have ruled several times that states that have a law that works with the federal immigration laws to enforce immigration law can legally enforce federal immigration laws since the current federal laws do not prohibit states from enforcing immigration laws.

Posted by: win1 | July 7, 2010 9:50 AM | Report abuse

I am amazed at the lack of HISTORICAL CONTEXT in this immigration debate.


First - in the 80s the democrats in Congress got AMNESTY for ALL ILLEGAL ALIENS -


People either don't remember that - or don't believe it.


The truth is - that AMNESTY just led to MORE immigration because potential illegal aliens believed there was a chance that they could get AMNESTY too.

THE FURTHER TRUTH - all this talk from the democrats about AMNESTY is just ENCOURAGING more illegal immigration because people are thinking they should want to get into this country under the deadline.

So - Obama is making the problem WORSE, not better.

SECOND on the historical context - one of the major justifications for NAFTA was to place jobs in Mexico, so people would have an incentive not to illegally migrate.


Did that work ? I think not.


But no one is saying to re-do NAFTA - so the Mexicans have the jobs in Mexico AND the jobs here.

AT SOME POINT - Americans are going to have to face the question: WHAT IS THE ACCEPTABLE US UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IN THE FACE OF ALL THESE TRADE AGREEMENTS.

Should the trade agreements be re-done - so the US government makes sure all the JOBS STAY HERE.

The present trade agreement situation gets set up OVER A DECADE AGO - THERE ARE NO ADJUSTMENTS - AND THE AMERICAN WORKERS DO NOT DESERVE TO BE STUCK IN A BAD SYSTEM WHICH CLINTON SET UP.


Posted by: FlowersOfPeace | July 7, 2010 9:50 AM | Report abuse

win1 writes
"Rather then having a racist immigration policy as you suggest we should limit immigration to those that serve the needs of this nation while."

I don't see where Andy's proposal was 'racist', but your other point is valid: immigration policy should serve the needs of this nation. Pretty clearly, the economy absorbed, for a very long time, a large number of illegal immigrants / undocumented workers. Those millions of people aren't coming here to twiddle their thumbs, they're coming for work & apparently jobs were available enough that people kept on coming. So the question is, do we want to be the kind of country that temporarily imports workers for the crummiest jobs, then sends 'em home when we're done with them, or do we welcome people who are willing to work hard in order to live a better life?

Posted by: bsimon1 | July 7, 2010 9:45 AM | Report abuse

Democrats going for mass illegal alien Amnesty make some big assumptions:

1. That they will continue to command 98% loyalty from blacks who are the Americans most adversely affected by mass Latin movement into the country. In terms of lost jobs, lost power in cities.

2. That somehow, in an America with only 57% of working age Americans holding jobs, that instant legalization of the 20 million illegals now free to take any job and apply to quickly reunite with 18 million relatives who will also be job-seekers - will not be thought of by the country as a bad thing.

3. That 20 million suddenly legalized Border crossers and the 18 million to soon arrive for family reunification will not instantly apply for a plethora of new welfare and social services benefits in States and cities already teetering on bankruptcy.

4. That the Mexican violence that has killed 30,000 in drug cartel wars will magically never boil north across our undefended Border.

5. That white Democrats are all like NYC residents and Harvard Law grads - in love with multiculturalism.

6. That all Hispanics think alike. Are a monolithic block that want their wages shrunk once illegals can do their work freely. That they all crave the 270 million Latins wanting to immigrate to America by any means necessary - to be allowed. And are in love with the Amnesty also including all the Haitians and Africans here illegally or on temp visas.

Posted by: ChrisFord1 | July 7, 2010 9:45 AM | Report abuse

I wonder how the federal government can defend its position against Arizona. Today many federal laws are enforced by state and local governments. If these actions are illegal, then we have punished many people illegally. Are all these people going to be compensated fairly for these illegal actions.
Are all the people turned over to the INS and then deported going to be provided with a plane ticked back to the US?
How is the federal government going to apply the "equal protection" ammendment by not enforcing the immigration laws. It is amazing that the laws must be obeyed by legal residents but not by illegal aliens.

Posted by: duif100 | July 7, 2010 9:40 AM | Report abuse

Sliowa,
You very well may be right, and I would agree that the wind is definitly in the democrats face right now, but a 46000 person edge is still a nice cushion to have. And I am sure that as you pointed out that the primaries may determine the races in Iowa, because if the GOP picks the crazy tea-party folks those Obama democrats may come back to the Dems in the end.

Posted by: AndyR3 | July 7, 2010 9:39 AM | Report abuse

Here's a thought:

Why don't we just open up our borders and let everybody in--including terrorist? There aren't enough jobs to go around for the American people, so why don't we let the illegals in so they can take up ever more of the jobs. That way you force true Americans into the streets, as homeless beggars. Let's raise our American born child in the streets and gutters like those in India? Let's become a third world country.

Posted by: jiggerallard | July 7, 2010 9:39 AM | Report abuse


Barry the incompetent boob Obama thinks if he goes golfing again and changes the subject to immigration, that Americans will forget about TWO MILLION GALLONS PER DAY of oil spilling into the Gulf of Mexico for the past 78 days. Barry the inept stumblebum dithered for ten weeks before finally allowing the first foreign ship to assist with the oil cleanup.

Miserable failure Obama.

Posted by: screwjob11 | July 7, 2010 9:37 AM | Report abuse

FairlingtonBlade - i heard that story with Cornyn too. He come off as thoughtful on the issue rather than a demagogue. The green card option sounds like Andy's red card proposal.

Also noted in that story is that both parties find the issue too useful to resolve it this year; the Repubs rally the base & think they're attracting swing voters, while Dems think they're attracting Hispanics as lifelong, multi-generational D voters. When there're elections at stake, approaches like Cornyn's, AndyR3's, Mark in Austin's, etc. are irrelevant.

Posted by: bsimon1 | July 7, 2010 9:37 AM | Report abuse

AndyR3:"At the same time we need to streamline the path to citizenship and make it easier for Hispanics to come in legally to this country"
-----------

Rather then having a racist immigration policy as you suggest we should limit immigration to those that serve the needs of this nation while.

Posted by: win1 | July 7, 2010 9:36 AM | Report abuse

Nothing like a good fight over illegal immigration to take the voters focus from the dismal unemployment numbers. Remember, Obama was going on focus on jobs like a laser. He has done everything but that.

Posted by: saelij | July 7, 2010 9:36 AM | Report abuse

Go after the corporations, farms, businesses, and ANYONE else who hires illegal immigrants and fine the piss outta them. Take away the reason for illegals to be here and they will either leave of their own volition or go about the proper channels of getting their visa and/or citizenship. There is a reason our borders are not guarded by the federal government, they are influenced by all the lobbyists whose paymasters gain from lax border security. If the government doesn't do this, fire them and elect others who will. We are in a representative republic, if you don't feel like they are representing your best interests get their stinking asses out of public office.
Do this and there will be no need for an unsightly 16th century wall around our great nation. Also, a wee bit off-topic but still pertains, if you are against gangs and murderers capitalizing on us, legalize marijuana. Cannabis is the majority of black market flow over the US-Mexico border, well into the billions of $$, untaxed. But the government makes too much money off allowing that to come over our borders and imposing fines and locking away decent human beings. Funny how hemp was made illegal when a well known interest was trying to push their nylon rope(made from oil) which wasn't as strong, durable, nor as cheap as hemp cordage. Also hemp seed oil and hemp fibers can be made into a SUSTAINABLE bio diesel and ethanol, unlike corn ethanol which was only introduced to jack up corn prices, while it is not sustainable. Lobbyists and corporations own you, please see the light of day, we have to work together to get our nation back. For full disclosure, I am center politically, and yes I have smoked cannabis since I was 19 and will until the day I die. Pigs be damned.

Posted by: DickVanstone | July 7, 2010 9:29 AM | Report abuse

U.S. GOV'T USES 'SPOOFED' WEB PAGES AND FAKE URLS TO CENSOR POLITICAL SPEECH OF 'TARGETED' AMERICANS: VETERAN JOURNO

Your comment to a political blog may look like it's been posted for all to see -- but if you've been "targeted" by a multi-agency Homeland-run fusion center censorship regime, your posting could be re-directed and "black-holed" by way of a "man in the middle attack."

Here's a veteran journalist's proof that the U.S. government imposes ideologically-driven censorship on "targeted" Americans -- and why naive officials of the Obama administration apparently have no clue of the wholesale constitutional rights violations that continue on their watch:

http://nowpublic.com/world/homeland-fusion-center-censors-net-political-comments-yet-again
http://nowpublic.com/world/u-s-govt-censors-net-political-speech-targeted-americans
OR NowPublic.com/scrivener (lede articles and links therein)

Posted by: scrivener50 | July 7, 2010 9:25 AM | Report abuse

Interestingly, the Democratic rationale for making immigration reform (shouldn't we just call it amnesty once and for all and dispense with the charade) a front burner issue is to maintain or win favor with Hispanics and not, at all, about the public interest and sane public policy.

And, therein lies the reason an increasing number of voters are going to abandon Democratic candidates at the poll. Because this party believes at its core that a strategy of catering to a single voting bloc should outweigh the duty to represent the interests of all the people. Need we remind Democratic strategists that minority voters do not turn out in anywhere near the numbers for midterm elections as in a Presidential cycle?

Democrats who support reform (amnesty?) do so on humanitarian, compassionate and idealogical grounds. They cannot bring themselves to admit this issue is, at its heart, about economics and pragmatic public policy because to do so would reveal the shallowness of their position. And when a Democrat/liberal has a losing argument on practical grounds, they pull out the "feelings" card.

If you are a Republican you are hoping and praying the Democrats keep pushing this issue right up to election day. You can then hang the consequences of reform (amnesty?) on each Democratic candidate and amplify the disenchantment caused by unacceptably high unemployment, two wars and a massive overreach of Federal power.

About the only hope Democrats have of blunting this loser of an issue is that Michael Steele continues as Chairman of the GOP. At least, then, his ramblings can serve as a counter point to the insanity of pushing immigration reform (amnestY) down the throat of an electorate which sees it for what it is.

Posted by: bobfbell | July 7, 2010 9:24 AM | Report abuse

Obozzo has been a total disaster on every front (economy, war, unemployment, housing, wall street, health care) so what's one more f---ing blunder.

Don't worry folks, if this moron stays in office long enough we can turn it around on good old Mexico buy flooding their country with US tax payers crossing the border looking for a better life.

I just wonder how long we'll be allowed to suck off the Mexican health care and welfare systems without paying taxes before they grant us amnesty.

Posted by: Bcamp55 | July 7, 2010 9:20 AM | Report abuse

Arizona should return the favor and sue the Federal Government and specifically the Obama Administration. The entire Obama Administration has sworn to uphold the law when they took their oath of office. They are obligated to enforce the immigration laws that Arizona is attempting to enforce. The law does not allow for sanctuary states and/or cities and also does not allow for selective enforcement.
The law is the law and the law must be obeyed, also by the Federal Government.
Furhtermore the Obama Administration is guilty of aiding and abetting the illegal criminals in committing their crimes in the US by not enforcing the immigration laws to the full extend of the law. The Obama Adminstration should be held accountable for the crimes they are committing against US citizens.
Arizona should also sue the Federal Government for the material and financial damages it has experienced as a result of this administration's lack of law enforcement.
It does not matter if someone supports or opposes illegal immigration, the law is still the law that is on the books now. It is the obligation of the federal government to uphold these laws until they have been legally changed.
By not enforcing these laws the administration has imposed a hidden tax on the US citizens without any legal authority. The cost might not be shown in the budgets today but the bill will become due some day.
Enforce the law and impose the maximum fine on every employer who hires illegal aliens.

Posted by: duif100 | July 7, 2010 9:19 AM | Report abuse


ARIZONA DEFENSE FUND - Unite against this violation of our rights and liberty!

www.keepazsafe.com

Posted by: bb67chev | July 7, 2010 9:19 AM | Report abuse

Good early morning comments. There was an interesting interview with Sen. Cornyn this morning on the immigration issue. Absolute opposition to a pathway to citizenship those who came to the US illegally or overstayed a visa. A sticking point for Republicans is going to be that citizens naturalized under this process are likely to be Democrats.

He was, however, open to green card status. A green card would mean residency, the right to work, and the ability to return to the US. It's not a bad deal and as good as they or the Democrats could get. Won't happen in 2010, though.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | July 7, 2010 9:12 AM | Report abuse

Millions are out of work and over a million legal immigrants are brought in each year. The Post can't understand why its an issue. It seems they won't get it until many more of their employees are laid off.

Posted by: OldAtlantic | July 7, 2010 9:03 AM | Report abuse

Mark,
I agree that this really isn't as difficult as everyone is making it. I think you could set up national centers for documentation where undocumented immigrants could come and pay a fine, get a criminal ground check and get a 'red' card which would serve like a temporary worker type of green card. They would have to pay Social Security and medicare as well as income taxes with no assurance that they would be able to get that money back unless they go through the full green card citizenship process which they would have to start from the begining. Then after 2-3 years any non-citizen who is found in the country without a red/green card will be immediatly deported, and you can use that time to train police officers around the country on how to enforce that law. And if you are found working without that documentation any unpaid wages can be seized and the person who hired you needs to be fined heavily as well.

At the same time we need to streamline the path to citizenship and make it easier for Hispanics to come in legally to this country. I personally think that we need to set-up two to three new Ellis Island type locations in places like El Paso and TJ to make this process work better (ie hand out new Red Cards for people coming over for seasonal work, family members joining naturalized citizens etc)

Posted by: AndyR3 | July 7, 2010 8:49 AM | Report abuse

AndyR,
“The democrats still hold a 46,000 person edge over the GOP. I would say that is a pretty sizable sum in a state as politically active as Iowa.”
Andy demographics do matter and Iowa is mostly white so even though there is significantly more D in Iowa those voters do not vote as a block. I would say a lot of people registered as D in 2008 since the D primary was a hotter issue with an unpopular president. The D now controls both houses of congress and the presidency and much of the large programs and massive spending passed by congress does not sit well with the average Iowans. Colin who is opposing Grassley has come out with commercials condemning the actions of Washington of which the D have voted in favor of, so she is running as an outsider who is actual outside her own party’s governance. I am sure she would have voted along with her party, but she is playing the voter anger card. Boswell before the health care vote was touting a compromise (incremental health care reform) so he too has was softening his party’s agenda. All that to say most Iowa D are not hard left, but rather center left. The news here is that people who are registering are registering as R not D. However, I would say the R primary was more hotly contested and there is more energy with R voters so that could explain part of the increase in R over D. There is a lot of anger at Washington and D will feel the heat this election cycle.

Posted by: sliowa1 | July 7, 2010 8:45 AM | Report abuse


US DOJ asserts in its filing that only Congress has
constitutional authority to regulate immigration
and enforcement of immigration law.

Indeed this is true! and Congress specifically
authorizes both State and Local officials who
ordinarily enforce any laws to act to apprehend
illegal aliens.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/usc_sec_08_00001324----000-.html

Specifically, at TITLE 8 /> CHAPTER 12 />
SUBCHAPTER II /> Part VIII /> § 1324. Bringing
in and harboring certain aliens

(c) Authority to arrest
No officer or person shall have
authority to make any arrests
for a violation of any provision of this section
except officers and employees of
the Service designated by
the Attorney General, either individually or
as a member of a class, and
all other officers whose
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
duty it is to enforce criminal laws.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Thus, if the DOJ's assertion that ONLY
CONGRESS has authority to regulate immigration
law, and delegate rights to enforce, CONGRESS
ALREADY HAS SPOKEN IN AFFIRMATION OF
MOST OF THE ARIZONA STATUTE.

Furthermore, if DOJ's contention is supported by
the court, DOJ has no standing in the case as it is
Executive Branch.

QED.

That being said, there's no bigger issue in many places than illegal immigration at a scale that over time amounts to INVASION.

And the hostility and outright crimes of illegal aliens are only increasing.


Posted by: thardman | July 7, 2010 8:44 AM | Report abuse

#1-The fact is that the constitution in Article 1 section 8 is clear that naturalization of people is the responsibility of the FEDERAL government. So the political argument doesn't matter the law is unconstitutional. And all those Tea-Party constructionists should agree that the law is unconstitutional and therefore should be repealed.

Also most law enforcement groups agree with the Democrats on this issue, which I think will help them in the long run.

#3-The democrats still hold a 46,000 person edge over the GOP. I would say that is a pretty sizable sum in a state as politically active as Iowa.

#5- I think Hickenlooper is doing the right thing. He is taking the race by the horns and driving the discussion. As they say the best defense is a good offense. Additionally, you have to spend money to make money. Its all cliches all the time today it seems.

Posted by: AndyR3 | July 7, 2010 8:04 AM | Report abuse

#1-The fact is that the constitution in Article 1 section 8 is clear that naturalization of people is the responsibility of the FEDERAL government. So the political argument doesn't matter the law is unconstitutional. And all those Tea-Party constructionists should agree that the law is unconstitutional and therefore should be repealed.

Also most law enforcement groups agree with the Democrats on this issue, which I think will help them in the long run.

#3-The democrats still hold a 46,000 person edge over the GOP. I would say that is a pretty sizable sum in a state as politically active as Iowa.

#5- I think Hickenlooper is doing the right thing. He is taking the race by the horns and driving the discussion. As they say the best defense is a good offense. Additionally, you have to spend money to make money. Its all cliches all the time today it seems.

Posted by: AndyR3 | July 7, 2010 7:52 AM | Report abuse

The Republicans should take note of the fate of the much hyped Marco Rubio in Florida. He is now trailing Charlie Crist in the polls. Rubio opposes a path to legalization for illegal immigrants (except for Cubans of course). Crist, on the other hand, supports common sense immigration reform including a path to legalization.

Posted by: mehuwss | July 7, 2010 7:50 AM | Report abuse

#1. The only actual consensus on immigration is that we do not want a policy of "open immigration, y'all come, please".

Historically it is easily the most often demagogued issue of all that have dogged our nation. It does not help that neither our legal immigration rules nor our policies regarding hiring of undocs make sense.

The AZ law will be struck down in part. To the extent it is an attempt at state direction of FP it cannot stand.

That polls show Americans favor both the AZ law and some form of "amnesty" demonstrates the ease with which the issue can be exploited. Amnesty did not work for RWR and it will not work now, but there are resolutions that can be achieved that are far less costly and drastic than mass forcible deportations.

Rational thought will be drowned out in a sea of catchwords. The Immigration Law and Labor Law sections of the ABA should be asked to volunteer a Model Law and what would be presented would work. I swear to God it is actually that simple, provided the goals are actually known.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | July 7, 2010 7:41 AM | Report abuse

Wow! Chris and the kids came off their long weekend determined to hit ALL the hot issues fast. It's nice that you are writing bold columns on the white vote, what Michael Steele on Afghanistan means, the TEA Party revealed and, today, immigration policy. I have found some of the interpretations simplistic, but what can you do in a few hundred words in a coulmn that is about politics?

The other problem is that the comments section gets bogged down in a great deal of shouting. So much certaintity with so many strongly held opinions and no one listening to anyone else. That's fine when we are just high-sticking about campaigns, but I feel like this just isn't the forum for complicated, nuanced issues that require time to say exactly what you mean along with a real commitment to taking-in another person's reasoning and experience.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | July 7, 2010 7:32 AM | Report abuse

I notice some of the Democratic representatives in Arizona are critical of Obama on this issue. Lots of Hispanics in Arizona. If the Dems think this issue is a winner for them, I can't see why they'd be telling Obama and Holder to butt out.

There's nothing in the suit about discrimination, which is understandable since it has yet to be enforced. Arizona law isn't really in conflict with the Federal statutes; it's more like assistance. I think there's at least a 50/50 chance the state prevails as this case works its way to the Supreme Court. Then other states will follow, and the pressure for national, comprehensive reform will intensify.

Posted by: Brigade | July 7, 2010 7:25 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company