WP: In the fight over Arizona's immigration law, everybody loses

[GSF]

This is a really good non-bias article that does a great job of describing the current debate around illegal immigration and the Arizona law. I think people on either side of the debate will find this article interesting. I have only posted the first paragraph, but I hope you guys that have been posting about this subject will read the whole article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/30/AR2010073002675.html

Arizona's immigration law was never going to solve the problem of illegal immigration. That is not its purpose. Instead it is an invitation to a shootout in which there will be no winners. It is more of a provocation than an attempt to enact policy, and as a protest against Washington's failure to fix a broken immigration system, it resonates.

[Mickalino]

Arizona's immigration law was never going to solve the problem of illegal immigration. That is not its purpose. Instead it is an invitation to a shootout in which there will be no winners. It is more of a provocation than an attempt to enact policy, and as a protest against Washington's failure to fix a broken immigration system, it resonates.

Lost all desire to read an article with such a ridiculous statement such as this.

This is far from an "un-biased" article or statement

[twa]

The real provocation is the feds ignoring their responsibilities,Arizona is certainly rubbing their face in it.

The author's claim there is no effective way to address employers of illegals is proved false by the fines being leveled.

The feds lack the will to lead and ignore the responsibility of their position.

[Redskinjoe]

The federal government has a duty to protect the existing citizens who are taxpayers first before providing an avenue for others to reach for their dreams.

Arizona wouldn't have to create a law to cut down on law breaking illegal immigrants if the feds enforced the law.

I cannot tell you how many friends and fellow students I know that have lost their jobs and businesses to immigrants (illegal and legal) simply because they will work for less.

You may as well call the Washington Post the Huffington Post. It is nothing but a propaganda spewing rag...

Just like the first post in this thread!

[GSF]

Lost all desire to read an article with such a ridiculous statement such as this.

This is far from an "un-biased" article or statement

I don't think it's a rediculous statement at all. I think that many in Arizona knew the law would be challenged in federal court, but are try to force the feds to deal with the issue.

[GSF]

The federal government has a duty to protect the existing citizens who are taxpayers first before providing an avenue for others to reach for their dreams.

Arizona wouldn't have to create a law to cut down on law breaking illegal immigrants if the feds enforced the law.

I cannot tell you how many friends and fellow students I know that have lost their jobs and businesses to immigrants (illegal and legal) simply because they will work for less.

You may as well call the Washington Post the Huffington Post. It is nothing but a propaganda spewing rag...

Just like the first post in this thread!

Propoganda? LOL, the article makes points on both sides of the issue.

[Redskinjoe]

Propoganda? LOL, the article makes points on both sides of the issue.

The headline of the article reads...

In the fight over Arizona's immigration law, everybody loses

...and that is about all I read. The rest, I skimmed.

The WP will post something of journalistic merit from time to time. When it does, I'll catch it through an external source. Otherwise, I only refer to the Post for Skins news.

Your comment is as irrelevant as the article. Arizona created the law to force the current administration (POTUS) to address the issue of illegal immigration. The Op Ed author's cry is futile. Winning or losing the case is irrelevant. Arizona and the other forty-nine win regardless.

Like I said... socialist dribble.

[GSF]

Maybe you should try to read the article before making your comments. There is nothing socialist about it.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Lost all desire to read an article with such a ridiculous statement such as this.

This is far from an "un-biased" article or statement

The headline of the article reads...

In the fight over Arizona's immigration law, everybody loses

What's ridiculous about it?

...and that is about all I read. The rest, I skimmed.

The WP will post something of journalistic merit from time to time. When it does, I'll catch it through an external source. Otherwise, I only refer to the Post for Skins news.

Your comment is as irrelevant as the article. Arizona created the law to force the current administration (POTUS) to address the issue of illegal immigration. The Op Ed author's cry is futile. Winning or losing the case is irrelevant. Arizona and the other forty-nine win regardless.

Like I said... socialist dribble.

God I love stuff like this. I read this and then I'll go to some liberal blog and they'll be ****ing about how the Washington Post sold out their jounalistic integrity and are nothing but Republican stooges these days. Maybe pissing off both sides is a good thing? I don't know.

Anyway, I'd be embarrassed to comment on an article I hadn't read (or comment on anything I hadn't completed).

[Burgold]

Your comment is as irrelevant as the article. Arizona created the law to force the current administration (POTUS) to address the issue of illegal immigration. The Op Ed author's cry is futile. Winning or losing the case is irrelevant. Arizona and the other forty-nine win regardless.

Like I said... socialist dribble.

Ah, so what you're saying that before the current administration the problem of immigration was being handled fine, but this administration has invoked rules that have weakened and made it that much worse?

Why now is always a question that should be asked? Did Obama pass a law that made illegal immigration easier? Isn't his administration actually deporting more aliens than Bush's? So, why now? And why attack this administration?

[twa]

So, why now? And why attack this administration?

The feds are suing to stop enforcement by the state,by doing so they have gone beyond ignoring their duty and are actively obstructing it.:saber:

Nice attempt at deflection:)

[Thiebear]

The headline of the article reads...

In the fight over Arizona's immigration law, everybody loses

...and that is about all I read. The rest, I skimmed.

The WP will post something of journalistic merit from time to time. When it does, I'll catch it through an external source. Otherwise, I only refer to the Post for Skins news.

Your comment is as irrelevant as the article. Arizona created the law to force the current administration (POTUS) to address the issue of illegal immigration. The Op Ed author's cry is futile. Winning or losing the case is irrelevant. Arizona and the other forty-nine win regardless.

Like I said... socialist dribble.

There is nothing better than a debate with someone that starts off:

I ddin't read it, but:

[Larry]

The feds are suing to stop enforcement by the state,by doing so they have gone beyond ignoring their duty and are actively obstructing it.:saber:

Nice attempt at deflection:)

He asked why Arizona suddenly had to pass this law, now.

Your response is to claim that they passed the law because the Feds sued to try to overturn it?

And you have the chutzpah to conclude your post with "Nice attempt at deflection"?

[Larry]

I did read it, and what I was was a bunch of vague generalities without any obvious coherency or point.

But that's just me.

[Redskinjoe]

Maybe you should try to read the article before making your comments. There is nothing socialist about it.

The headline speaks for itself. The intent of the article is to make proposed legislation similar to Arizona's recent law enacted by other states appear futile. The content of the article doesn't read "socialism". Wring out the intent and you'll have buckets full of it. The socialists don't want more states lining up with laws similar or better written than Arizona's. Here come the journ-o-lists!

Other states are waiting for the results of the Arizona case to be determined by the Supreme Court. They are doing so in an effort to avoid the legal costs associated with it. Once this case if determined by th SCOTUS, you'll see the rest of the states start following suit.

Why? Money. The tax base has been severely diminished by foreign workers who are willing to work at lower pay or illegals working under the table. Someone said all politics are local issues. Money is always king.

I'm not the least bit embarrassed to admit I only skimmed the article. Doing anything more than skimming an Op Ed piece in the WP would induce vomiting.

Now here's an articles worth reading....

The American Thinker: The War on Terror at the Mexican Border

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/the_war_on_terror_at_the_mexic.html

If anyone opposed to my opinion chooses to "skim" the article they will notice footnotes at the closing of the article. Footnotes stand in support of the information contained in the article and give credence to the author and the article. It is called an opinion determined by facts... not just opinion based on drummed up feelings.

Yes... there is some factual information nested in the referenced WP Op Ed piece. The reader has to do their homework in order to reconstruct the facts though.

I wonder why? Hmmmm....

[Redskinjoe]

I did read it, and what I was was a bunch of vague generalities without any obvious coherency or point.

But that's just me.

You said it best brother. In the immortal words of Albert Morris...

Feelings...

Nothing more than feelings...

Trying to forget my...

Woh Woh feelings...

[twa]

He asked why Arizona suddenly had to pass this law, now.

Your response is to claim that they passed the law because the Feds sued to try to overturn it?

And you have the chutzpah to conclude your post with "Nice attempt at deflection"?

Because the economy ,unemployment and illegal traffic there has changed.:beatdeadhorse:

Using the higher number of deportations as cover(that is falsely inflated btw) that are a direct result of programs started after the public turned on W's attempt at amnesty is a joke.

People are fed up with the feds lack of enforcement be it Rep or Dem.

[Larry]

Now here's an articles worth reading....

The American Thinker: The War on Terror at the Mexican Border

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/the_war_on_terror_at_the_mexic.html

Look. An article from an opinion web site which is designed to create a completely fictional linkage between terrorism and illegal immigration.

(Seemed an appropriate response.)

[twa]

bad day for the Justice dept :evilg:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/04/a-bad-day-in-court-for-the-obama-administration.php

On Twitter, Byron York asked: “Question for legal types: Is Donald Verrilli bad at his job or just burdened by having to defend the indefensible?” You can read the entire argument here and draw your own conclusions, but in my opinion, the problem was not with Verrilli but rather with the quality of the arguments that he was required to make by his client, the Obama administration.

[Thiebear]

As the Scotus said:

Arizona finding out people are illegal doesn't seem that big a deal: The Federal Gov't doesn't "HAVE" to deport them.

Arresting them and other punishments might be overturned as one Justice seemed to think it should be focused on the Employer vs. Employee as the Feds outlined.

Again: All the feds have to do is up immigration a few million a year. (especially now) it would cover most considering the exodus.

[Bang]

Renunciation of citizenship?

How does this play into illegals who aren't citizens?

How do we document undocumented people?

I've decided to leave in a few years, but it's more because of the Republican craziness than anything economic.

Will i be counted as an illegal in a future thread?

~Bang

[twa]

It is connected to federal overreaching Bang,and a response to it

but federal overreaching to me is the real issue in this matter(not immigration)...Arizona did not make a immigration law

[Larry]

It is connected to federal overreaching Bang,and a response to it

Yeah, because you've created such an ironclad case that 100 people a year, renouncing their citizenship, is Obama's fault. Obviously, they're fleeing the country and renouncing their citizenship, to escape from buying health insurance.

Arizona did not make a immigration law

Really? Then hey, we can all quit now!

The law they passed isn't unconstitutional, because there is no such law.

I guess Sheriff Joe made it up. As a joke.

----------

(And I'm really loving the irony of the conservatives arguing that the supremacy clause says that California cannot pass pollution laws, but Arizona can pass immigration laws.)

----------

That said, though? At least ack when this law was being discussed, my only problem with it was what I see as the mandated racial profiling. (Because of the law's wording that it only applies to people with "a reasonable suspicion of being illegal". To me, there is no way to determine such a reasonable suspicion by any standard other than "Hispanic who doesn't speak English very well."

I said, back then, that if the law, instead, mandated that someone's immigration status be checked, whenever an officer checks for outstanding warrants, (which I believe they do, for example, on every traffic stop), then it's not racial profiling, it's just standard law enforcement procedure. Something that they do for everybody. Routine.

[twa]

That was impressive ,especially the chart reading

[gbear]

Larry, the racial profiling part was my biggest problem with the law too. It makes me wonder if the people who wrote the law because of aspects of enforcement (it wasn't being enforced) have given much of a thought to how their law will be applied and to whom. Aren't most illegals here on expired visas which on its face would suggest our preconceptions about the illegal alien issue may be off base?

If the Supreme Court upholds the AZ law, do they expect a racial profiling lawsuit?