This tickled me

Eric Holder is really starting to piss me off.

Haha! Awesome.

P.S. I also have not read the law!

I'm shocked that anyone would be surprised by the fact that most politicians don't read much of the legislation that they're involved w/.

This is all I needed to read to know that I don't support SB 1070. If you do support this I'd personally prefer it if you'd go to Mexico instead.

I would not be surprised if the same guys who call Obama a fascist (wrongly), also want to put Mexicans in labour camps.

Tibby, I haven't heard of anyone suggesting labour camps. I'm not sure where you got that idea.

Ignore the troll, folks.





Anyway, thanks for the link, Mentat. I read their criticisms, and some of them are either exaggerations or outright misreadings of the law. For example, in their critique of Section 2F, they say that it will discourage participation in public benefit programs. Why? The section seems to boil down to that if you interact with the federal government, they have the right to investigate your immigration status. It seems pretty bind eye to me, and what's wrong with making sure that only tax-paying citizens are beneficiaries to public programs?

There are others, but the most egregious use of "creative writing" is in section 5. "Immigrant day laborers" was never stated, just "day laborers". When they discuss "solicitation of work" it isn't solicitation in general but only if an undocumented worker is doing it.

Not to say that I'm 100% with this bill, because I can easily imagine it causing more strife than it already has with legal residents. Every legal resident that gets investigated will most likely try and seek recourse. However, no section seems particularly evil or unjust, just the right idea implemented ham-fistedly. You can't deny there is a problem, and some sort of action is needed.

I was talking about crazy fringers, but point taken.

Come on. Those people are really busy. You can't possibly expect them to read a ten page law before condemning it.

Viva Los 1070!

And to clarify this, it's not because he's wrong. It's because he could have taken the time to read the bill and easily avoided handing a big talking point to proponents of a bill that's almost certainly invalid to begin with.

So he's right then?

That there are serious concerns about the constitutional validity of the bill? Yes. That much is apparent from the simple fact that Arizona is making immigration law at all.

I thought the law basically just confirmed that those committing a federal civil misdemeanor are also committing a state misdemeanor. I don't see the big problem with it. Seems to me that a state supporting federal law should be far from unconstitutional.

Doesn't matter. Where federal law is so comprehensive that it occupies an entire field, a state can't regulate in that field even if the regulation is supposedly cooperative. Congress has historically exercised full and exclusive control over immigration.

Missed that last time I read the constitution. My bad.

That's okay, I'm sure you'll remember the Supremacy Clause next time.

The whole thing is ludicrous. For every other law in the land nobody is going to complain when a state turns a perp over to the feds but when it's an illegal, that's just out of bounds. Hilarious.

Let's be clear here: What other crimes are you thinking of, and why would federal preemption come into play for those crimes?

It's already happening & it's not looking pretty.


I think that there's definitely a problem. However, I think that U.S. policies have been at the forefront of causing it (e.g: drug policies). I think it's sad how we're partially responsible for causing the chaos &/or collapse of another country & then we get upset when people from said country try to come here for a better life. If we want to solve this problem, we need to change our policies to allow solutions. I think that's the action that's needed. SB 1070 isn't a solution. It does however get us talking about solutions & in that one way it's a positive.

I have no problem with them, and indeed respect people who will move great distances to improve their life. I hate the fact that immigration reform people are lumped with people who are pretty much racists. If I were an unskilled laborer in Mexico I'd do the same thing. However, immigrants should be not only loyal citizens, but also be admitted in a way that we could handle the burden.

Also, what are we doing to cause the "chaos &/or collapse" of Mexico? They have a multitude of issues which many developing countries have, but what have we done that have put significant barriers to their development?



Even proponents admit at best SB 1070 essentially reiterates existing federal law. I think the goal was to stir the pot. However, these solutions are wildly different. They vary from having the border be an impenetrable wall to being borderless.

Personally, I'd be for doing a thorough security check on every individual, and admit immigrants until their product-cost would be zero (in other words, not allowing a huge influx of unskilled labor, which would not only saturate the market but cost more in public expenditures than they make). Basically, what I'd require of new citizens is that they would obey the law and contribute proportionally to society. Accomplishing that is no simple task.