-
Anyone Still Believe Me?
May 21, 2013 | 38 comments
-
What Those Who Boycott Israel Really Want
May 14, 2013 | 143 comments
-
Mitt on Marriage
May 8, 2013 | 38 comments
-
The One Constant
May 1, 2013 | 118 comments
-
Trudeaus and Terrorism
April 22, 2013 | 15 comments
The Obama Watch
More Demagoguery and Disingenuousness
He’s back on a racial profiling kick.
President Obama got most everything he wanted in the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Arizona immigration law. But getting most everything he wants isn’t enough for Obama. For him, it’s an all or nothing proposition with no room for compromise. Mick Jagger and Keith Richards’ sage advice, “You can’t always get what you want. But if you try sometimes well you might find you get what you need,” won’t suffice for Obama – choir or no choir. To paraphrase the late Freddie Mercury, “He wants it all and he wants it now.”
The Supreme Court, of course, upheld the Arizona law’s most controversial provision which would allow state and local enforcement to verify the immigration status of an individual whom they have a reasonable suspicion is in the country illegally. This did not please the President who, when responding to the high court’s ruling, stated, “No American should ever live under a cloud of suspicion just because of what they look like.”
Of course, this isn’t the first time President Obama has engaged in racial demagoguery while besmirching law enforcement concerning this legislation. During a town hall meeting in Ottumwa, Iowa in April 2010, Obama told his audience:
But you can imagine, if you are a Hispanic American in Arizona — your great-grandparents may have been there before Arizona was even a state. But now, suddenly, if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to be harassed. That’s something that could potentially happen. That’s not the right way to go.
Does President Obama honestly think that Arizona state troopers are going to stake out every Baskin-Robbins along I-17? If they did then how would they christen such a task force? Operation Rocky Road? But what else can we expect of a President who publicly accused the police department in, of all locales, The People’s Republic of Cambridge, of “acting stupidly” after arresting his friend from Harvard University? Or for that matter described Trayvon Martin like the son he never had?
Yet when the Obama Administration filed suit against Arizona there was no mention of racial profiling in their complaint. When Bob Schieffer, host of CBS’ Face the Nation, asked Attorney General Eric Holder in July 2010 why this was the case, Holder replied:
We’re going to go out with what we thought was our strongest initial argument and to focus on what we thought the most serious problem with the law as it now exists. Doesn’t mean if the law, for whatever reason, happened to go into effect that six months from now, a year from now, we might not look at the impact the law has had and see whether or not there has been that racial profiling level and if that was the case we would have the tools and we would bring suit on that basis.
When Holder talks about “our strongest initial argument” what he really means is that the Obama Administration had no evidence to support their argument that the Arizona immigration law would lead to racial profiling. Moreover, if that provision of the Arizona law went into effect they would still need to investigate “whether or not there has been that racial profiling level” to warrant further legal action. In other words, when the Obama Administration filed its lawsuit against Arizona, it had bupkis where it concerned racial profiling. Not that the Obama Administration would let a lack of evidence of racial profiling get in the way of its dogged pursuit of demagoguery. But for the time being it appears that the Obama Administration will simply be content not to enforce the law.
So the next time President Obama says that the Arizona immigration law forces Americans to live under a cloud of suspicion because of what they look like, he ought to be asked why his administration didn’t make that argument to the courts. He ought to be asked that question because the federal government made the exact opposite argument. It argued that the Arizona immigration law would put a strain on the resources of ICE because it interpreted the Arizona law to mean that any person arrested in Arizona would be required to have their immigration status checked. Federal District Court Judge Susan Bolton agreed with the federal government and blocked several contentious portions of the Arizona immigration law in August 2010. All of which would bring us to our present state of affairs. As I wrote at the time:
If, in fact, it was Arizona’s intention to check the immigration status of every single person they arrested, then I would argue that Arizona would be doing the very opposite of racial profiling. Yet somehow I don’t think critics of S.B. 1070 would be inclined towards such generosity.
President Obama is certainly not inclined towards such generosity. Aside from spending us into insolvency, the only two other things President Obama has dispensed generously to the American public is demagoguery and disingenuousness. A most potent and dangerous mix indeed.
About the Author
Aaron Goldstein writes from Boston, Massachusetts.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (75) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Aaron Goldstein
More Articles From The Obama Watch
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/06/26/more-demagoguery-and-disingenu
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
benny havens| 6.26.12 @ 7:18AM
Just in from President Transparent in the Oval Office- “It’s the votes, stupid.”
TLP| 6.26.12 @ 8:23AM
The Muslim is a Community Organizer. He's a Street Agitator, and a Troublemaker. He is a child of Marx and Engels, Lenin and Mao, Alinsky and Farrakhan.
Like all the Dictators who came before, he needs an ENEMY to point to, and SINGLE OUT.
That would be YOU, Mr. and Mrs. White Person. You, who are so afraid to be thought of as "Racist"' are the ones he seeks to Destroy.
He has spent his entire Adult Life, in the Company of people who HATE WHITE PEOPLE. Everybody knows that. And, JESUS said, what, about "Associations"?
"Men shall know you, by the Company you keep."
Indeed.
When he says "RACISM"? He means WHITE PEOPLE. When he says "RACIST"? He means WHITE PEOPLE.
"The White Cops were stupid.".
I've often wondered why the Jews in Europe, didn't put up a Fight. How could it be that they would, basically, just WALK in to the Ovens?
It's the same thing now, with any White, who would give his support to a man who is doing everything in his power, every day of the week, to put an end to the Demographics that Built this Country, and turn it over to those from the Third World.
HELLO?
Von Mises Jr| 6.26.12 @ 7:22AM
So the central question seems to be that if a MS-13 drug or human trafficking illegal alien stops to buy a banana split at Dairy Queen with a "Fast and Furious" AK-47 draped over his shoulder, is it a crime for local law enforcement to profile him? Perhaps it is good that the Federal Government will not pick him up as Eric Holder may give him a couple ammunition clips before releasing him back into the public.
Al Adab| 6.26.12 @ 11:15AM
Jr:
Cynicism makes the point well. Still, while so many seem to think AZ lost this round it is in fact the administration which is acting as though they lost. The directive to not cooperate with AZ law enforcement when they are checking status is a blatant violation of both Article IV Sec. 4 and the directive that the president see that "the laws are faithfully enforced" as he is under oath to do. Nothing AZ may do is as great a violation (if any) of the constitution as are the actions of this administration.
What he has done is forced AZ , and the several other States with similar laws, into a position of having to act to protect themselves from invasion. The federal government has stated it will not act or cooperate, so the States must act on their own behalf as they certainly retain the power to do. The question here is: does this action of the federal government break the covenant under which the States and the People ratified the Constitution? If the national government can ignore the terms of the compact, are the People and States any longer bound to respect it? They must act on their own behalf to insure their happiness, security and liberty.
Von Mises Jr| 6.26.12 @ 11:42AM
Bingo, Al. If this garbage is not taken to the curb, it will stink up the house. If it does not end in 2013, I suspect we will have revolt from several states who simply tell the federal government to get the hell out of their state or they will need to have themselves picked up and extricated from the state at the border.
In fact, the issue that it raises is that if an illegal is arrested in AZ and the Feds refuse to return the call, the state is virtually forced to hold him in custody. If they will not be accepted or deported by INS, Sheriff Joe is not letting them loose in Phoenix. So they can sit in the slammer with pink underwear until we get a new regime.
You want to see what a Mexican standoff really looks like?
Al Adab| 6.26.12 @ 12:42PM
Jr:
The scenario you posit is a likely outcome. No doubt AZ has many laws on the book to justify detention or arrest (not the same things) pending investigation. If the feds refuse to help, then the State will undoubtedly act to defend itself even if they choose to deport on their own volition.
RCV| 6.26.12 @ 1:16PM
A federal court would be obliged to issue a habeas petition in a heartbeat if that were to happen, and you can be sure that there are lawyers standing by to do so. Sherrif Joe may be incustody by that time anyway.
Skippy| 6.26.12 @ 3:03PM
"John Marshall has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it."
Revolt against the Feds.
All of the State's police and armed citizens against a van full of FBI agents and Fed. Marshalls?
Good luck with that one.
RCV| 6.26.12 @ 11:25PM
The Southern states found out how that one works out Skippy, as did Governors Faubus and Ross Barnett and Wallace.
C'mon Man!| 6.26.12 @ 1:17PM
I LOVE Sherrif Joe, and support him fully. He'll do the right thng and keep the criminals, yes, criminals (that's what they are) in confinement. I hope in the tent city.
I equate letting illegals off the hook with catching a bank robber 5 years later - do we let them keep the money, since they had it for 5 years? Maybe if they robbed the bank when they were 16 they should get to keep it.
A crime is a crime, and should be punished, or you invite more of the same activity.
RCV| 6.26.12 @ 1:20PM
Al Adab - States have simply no power or jurisdiction over immigration and naturalization under our constitution. In the compact that formed our country, that was explicity left to the central government so that we could, as the Constitution says, have "uniform" rules about immigration and naturalization.
TrueBlue | 6.26.12 @ 3:03PM
It says the central government is responsible for uniform rules about immigration and naturalization, but does not say which is responsible for enforcing it.
Sec. 8, Clause 4
"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States"
Also: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec10
Notice that there is nothing in there prohibiting the States from enforcing those laws of naturalization. As per the 10th Amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The key part in there is "nor prohibited by it to the States," nowhere in the Constitution does it say the States are not allowed to enforce federal laws. The ASSUMPTION is made that if it is a federal law then it will be upheld by the federal government, but since that is obviously not the case of late it is well within the powers of the States to uphold the laws in their place.
RCV| 6.26.12 @ 11:27PM
The Supreme Court just rejected that argument 5-3.
Skippy| 6.26.12 @ 3:05PM
When the Feds refuse to enforce, it is the duty of the States to do so.
If the States refuse, the citizenry will enforce the law, but without all the messy legal protections for the accused.
Frontier justice returns to the West.
TLP| 6.26.12 @ 5:00PM
Your argument is as Stupid as you are.
President POS, took an OATH OF OFFICE, to Faithfully Uphold the Laws of the land.
Not just the ones he likes.
Remember?
He is in Violation of his Oath of Office.
Even a Dumbass, like you, can understand that.
Right, Dumbass?
loulou| 6.26.12 @ 6:20PM
If Prez POS were not a Muslim you can be sure there would be impeachment procedings in the works.
His ethnicity and religion give him immunity.
TLP| 6.26.12 @ 6:48PM
If I wasn't Married...............
RCV| 6.26.12 @ 11:28PM
Yes, the American people are so protective of Muslims. That must be it, loulou.
Purp| 6.26.12 @ 7:48AM
Sour grapes, sour grapes. The conservatives were wrong and you should just say "excuse me for my rottenness" and quietly go away and contemplate what you would have done to American citizens, not just illegals.
CJW| 6.26.12 @ 8:41AM
Obamaboy Purpie,
Since the Arizona law was based on the federal law, then isn't the federal law also racist and un-American? The Court struck down only the provisions covered by the federal law on the doctrine of preemption.
Purp| 6.26.12 @ 1:08PM
Not quite, Chuckles, but I'm sure you don't do "nuance", do you? It's complicated. When you're older, you'll understand.
CJW| 6.26.12 @ 2:49PM
So Obamaboy, you can't answer the question?
Skippy| 6.26.12 @ 3:06PM
Stop asking him questions.
The concept of replying is beyond him.
tularockstar| 6.26.12 @ 11:05AM
You slimey liberals are so predictable! All you do is blame others for your ineptness and failed results. Your messiah is a communist, and you might as well join him and his DemoRAT comrades and hail the RED book! You're pathetic!
Purp| 6.26.12 @ 1:09PM
And, you are oh so high minded, sweet and lovable? You're a racist pig and your commentary proves.
Skippy| 6.26.12 @ 3:07PM
Soon the citizens will take the law into their own hands.
There are not enough Feds to even slow us down, much less stop us.
RCV| 6.26.12 @ 11:29PM
Give it a try, Skippy. I'd love to see how it works out.
JD| 6.26.12 @ 11:51AM
Ah, the liberal mind. If congress or the courts agrees with the liberal, then there is nothing more to be said. Their authority is absolute, and anyone who disagrees is wrong, without question, simply by virtue of the authority's decree.
But when government or the court opposes the liberal agenda, then it's a different story, isn't it? Citizens United? DOMA? Where's the "sour grapes; you were wrong" mentality then?
The only ones who should be contemplating what they do to American citizens are the ones whose government policies harm Americans daily. We who advocate that people make their own way, without government interference, can't be blamed for that.
Purp| 6.26.12 @ 1:12PM
The difference is, for the light of brain among you, a Conservative Supreme Court dissed a Conservative Governor and Legislature's attempt to codify racism. So you're own boys crushed you, and THAT is so enjoyable.
"We who advocate that people make their own way, without government interference, can't be blamed for that" - so then you are in favor of keeping the government out of my bedroom, who I marry, what I do with my body, what I smoke, drink or eat, how I worship (or not) ? You are aok with all of those then, huh? Government intervention my a** ... you just want the government to do your bidding, then it's okay.
TLP| 6.26.12 @ 6:50PM
What would you do, Purp, if a bunch of Illegals broke in to your house, and refused to leave?
Tell us.
What would you do if ANYONE broke in to your house, and refused to leave?
I'll wait.
Pecos Pete| 6.26.12 @ 8:18AM
Where is Mr. Purp? This commentary deserves to hear Mr. Purp's (and Brooksie's) thoughts. Not.
Purp| 6.26.12 @ 8:20AM
:-)
tularockstar| 6.26.12 @ 11:06AM
You mean more like PERV?
Purp| 6.26.12 @ 1:13PM
is Tula short for Tularemia? When did you contract that disease? Is there a cream for that?
TLP| 6.26.12 @ 8:20AM
First I'd like to say that NOBODY should respond to the obvious Obama Cult Member, seated just above me. Doing so is like running over a Newspaper, with the Lawn,owner. It goes everywhere.
Anyway.
The Muslim is a Community Organizer. He's a Street Agitator, and a Troublemaker. He is a child of Marx and Engels, Lenin and Mao, Alinsky and Farrakhan.
Like all the Dictators who came before, he needs an ENEMY to point to, and SINGLE OUT.
That would be YOU, Mr. and Mrs. White Person. You, who are so afraid to be thought of as "Racist"' are the ones he seeks to Destroy.
He has spent his entire Adult Life, in the Company of people who HATE WHITE PEOPLE. Everybody knows that. And, JESUS said, what, about "Associations"?
"Men shall know you, by the Company you keep."
Indeed.
When he says "RACISM"? He means WHITE PEOPLE. When he says "RACIST"? He means WHITE PEOPLE.
"The White Cops were stupid.".
I've often wondered why the Jews in Europe, didn't put up a Fight. How could it be that they would, basically, just WALK in to the Ovens?
It's the same thing now, with any White, who would give his support to a man who is doing everything in his power, every day of the week, to put an end to the Demographics that Built this Country, and turn it over to those from the Third World.
HELLO?
Al Adab| 6.26.12 @ 11:17AM
BTW, faced with a situation in which the federal goverment will not assist local AZ law enforcement in their investigations, it is worth noting that "investigative detention" may hold persons for up to 48 hours. As AZ will continue to act to protect itself, this ios going to get interesting.
RCV| 6.26.12 @ 11:57AM
The Court made quite clear that detaining people for suspected immigration violations without federal approval would be unconstitutional:The majority hinted that detention longer than necessary to complete the original purpose of the stop would conflict with federal law.
"Detaining individuals solely to verify their immigration status would raise constitutional concerns. And it would disrupt the federal framework to put state officers in the position of holding aliens in custody for possible unlawful presence without federal direction and supervision. The program put in place by Congress does not allow state or local officers to adopt this enforcement mechanism."
Arizona may detain folks for suspected violations of state criminal laws, but can't detain anyone for immigration violations unless directed to by federal officers.
Al Adab| 6.26.12 @ 12:34PM
"Investigative detention" is not arrest. They are seperate terms of art. It is a point in the law that many people do not understand. Should the feds refuse to assist in an investigation, the person may be detained, but not arrested, for some time for investigation. The fed action here harms rather than helps the very people they claim to care about. It is obvious that AZ will continue to act in its own defense. The other States involved, 5 or six I believe with similar laws, may choose to continue also. Some of those laws, such as FL which are better written, are not effected by this ruling. This is going to get interesting as it is the Feds in this instance who are taking a nullification stance.
Al Adab| 6.26.12 @ 12:37PM
Oh RCV: it is also not unlikely that many violations of state law may be found during a police contact. No auto insurance, no drivers license, DUI, to name only a few involving vehicles. No doubt AZ like many States has plenty on the books to apply.
RCV| 6.26.12 @ 1:24PM
And, if violations of state law are found -- including driving without a license -- Arizona officials can and should arrest persons for violations of those laws, and prosecute them. And if they do so, the federal government WILL deport them -- Obama has deported more illegals who commit criminal violations than any President before him. Indeed, the Obama administration has been the most aggressive administration ever in numbers of deportations, and has wisely concentrated its efforts on deporting those immigrants who violate our criminal laws.
RCV| 6.26.12 @ 1:14PM
Al Adab - as the quote above reflects, both I and the Court know the distinction between arrest and detention, and the Court clearly says that state officials DETAINING people for only suspected immigration violations without federal supervision or direction raises serious constitutional concerns.
Al Adab| 6.26.12 @ 1:30PM
Many ways to skin a cat RCV. No doubt the several States involved will act to protect their citizens and defend themselves. The aformentioned habeas writ might just be served on the fed for refusing to act on their Constitutional duties: Article IV Sec. 4 and Article III, Sec. 3.
In your opinion is violation of the oath of office by any and all of these officials, top to bottom, grounds for impeachment or prosecution? Do not the States retain the power to act on their own behalf when faced with willful federal refusal? Can not the claim be made that the fed is endangering the covenant between the People and States which ratified and itself? This is an enlightening conversation and I know you are a learned man.
Al Adab| 6.26.12 @ 1:37PM
While penning this one your 1:24 above appeared. We do agree on much, however ICE has refused time and again to take into custody and to deport many convicted of State crimes and now one must wonder about violations of Federal law and whether the administration, given their non-assistance position, will accept custody of those so charged.
Anecdotally, in our local jurisdiction, we just had a woman arrested for fraud charges and it was discoverd that she had an ICE hold on her from before, yet no efforts were made to act in that case. I'm certain many such instances have ocurred in AZ and the other States involved here.
RCV| 6.26.12 @ 2:32PM
The plain reality, Al Adab, is that the Obama administration has deported more illegal aliens every single year than any previous administration. That's just a fact. And those efforts have been concentrated on law violators. I know from personal observation in our Los Angeles state courts that EVERY alien -- legal or illegal -- who has pending felony or serious misdemeanor (Domestic Violence, Assault, Threats, Burglary) charges against them, has an ICE hold placed on them, which means that when they are released, they are automatically turned over to federal immigration authorities for processing. An "ICE hold" means that they must be released by state authorities into federal custody.
As to your other question, the administration of uniform federal rules on immigration and naturalization is not, by any case I'm aware of, related to the "invasion" clause of Article IV section 4, which would to my mind refer to invasion by a foreign power or army.
And no, states do not retain jurisdiction to act on their own with respect to immigration merely because they disagree with federal policy or the way in which it is administered.
Skippy| 6.26.12 @ 3:10PM
Revolution is in order.
Nothing like a real bloodbath to focus the mind.
RCV| 6.27.12 @ 12:22PM
You talk a big game, Skippy.
Al Adab| 6.26.12 @ 3:29PM
Your situation in LA is not mirrored in my jurisdiction. ICE refuses almost daily to take custody of illegal migrant felons in our local jails and they amount to about 25% of the jail population. ICE numbers are up and I do not argue that point. It is however, not a result of Administration policy as much as a consequence of rising enforcement and notification by local authorities. Apparently LA has a favored status while AZ is pariah.
Anytime, as is the case out in AZ, the illegal population approaches 10% of the state population and they enter well armed and hold a portion of the State under their control, I think the definition of "invasion" is met. When Pancho Villa invaded NM and attacked the town of Columbus, the federal government under Wison sent the army into Mexico in pursuit. If that is not a precedent, what is?
Faced with a willful refusal of the fed to enforce its own immigration law, the States retain the right to act in their own behalf. This is distinct from a simple policy disagreement. In this instance I wonder if the fed government has not abbrogated the covenant under which The People and States ratified the Constitution.
RCV| 6.26.12 @ 3:40PM
Not aware of any rule or principle that would prevent Arizona from taken action against armed invaders, unless they've taken the NRA's advice on open carry and concealed weapons.
As I said, this administration has done more than any other to deport people here illegally, political propaganda notwithstanding. Not deporting those who came here as kids and are in school and law-abiding doesn't equate with letting Pancho Villa run rampant.
RCV| 6.26.12 @ 3:41PM
...and by the way, it is always a pleasure to have discussions with you sir. be well!
CJW| 6.26.12 @ 3:59PM
Al Adab and RCV
Interesting discussion.
Given the existing preemption case law, the Court's decision is in line with the law.
But Scalia's dissent, and Al Adab, raises a serious question. What does a state do when the federal government does not enforce, for whatever reason, adequately the immigration laws when this federal inaction causes such serious problems to the state? And in this case, Obama has ordered ICE to not cooperate with Arizona.
Since Arizona's law is similar to the federal law, why not allow Arizona to enoforce it, and see how it works, as to whether it conflicts with federal policies. States were to be the laboratories of democracy to experiment with different policies. There was no reason, except political, for Obam to sue Arizona over this law. He could have waited to see how it operates.
The problems experienced by the border states such as Arizona are much more serious than the other non-border states. Allowing the border states some leeway to correct the problems and then judge the results would have been more in keeping with the concept of federalism than suing Arizona before we know how the law operates.
Each state has a civil rights statute for employment,housing, etc that mirrors the federal statute. While not a perfect analogy that system works well. Why not allow the border states to enforce the federal statute?
Al Adab| 6.26.12 @ 4:37PM
W:
You likewise raise good questions. We should not limit the examination solely to immigration law. When the federal government chooses to oppose the enforcement of its laws for whatever reasons, do not the States as equal partners, not subordinate creatures or creations of the national government, have the obligation to their People (who ratified the compact) to enforce said laws?
RCV| 6.26.12 @ 11:32PM
Because the Constitution allocates that jurisdiction to the Central government, not the states.
Al Adab| 6.26.12 @ 4:30PM
Likewise a pleasure sir. We shall one day share a Scotch or beverage of your choice and introduce ourselves to one another. Have a good evening.
Al Adab| 6.26.12 @ 4:48PM
We should note as well RCV that there is a clear distinction between thos brought without their volition (some of whom are unaware of their status) and those who enter ala Pancho for criminal purposes. The first should be dealt with on a case by case basis as we are glad to welcome productive assimilated immigrants. The second should be opposed by both State and Federal authorities. Such is currently not the case. Would you favor federal military action against the armed groups controlling much of the southern border areas? When AZ proposed placing National Guard troops on its border, then Gov. Janet Napolitano, yes "Big Sis" vetoed the funding bill even though she stated she favored the Guard action. Duplicitous as the title above mentions.
Again, have a great evening and enjoy a cognac with my compliments.
We also need to keep in mind that a significant percentage of illegals (shorthand) approximating 20% are from such wonderful friendly nations as Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Syria, Iran etc. Since many of these captured have been taught Spanish in locations in South America we might be cautious and ask if they are actually crossing in search of landscape work or other jobs "Americans won't do".
RCV| 6.27.12 @ 12:24PM
I would indeed favor military action, or anything else that could be done, against the armed groups operating in the area, on both sides of the border. THAT is indeed a real Pancho Villa problem, and the response ought to be the same. The corruption within the Mexican government should not prevent the US from acting decisively against the criminal gangs terrorizing both Mexican and American citizens.
loulou| 6.26.12 @ 6:22PM
AZ citizens are not getting equal protection under the law. Is that legal?
Louis Jenkins| 6.26.12 @ 10:45AM
Holder called the blacks out front of the Philly voting station "my people." Remember that? He will not lift a finger to prosecute them.
Obama stands high on the stage and says for the whites to "let my people go!" The problem is they're going everywhere, without pappers, id, or even a driver's license. Strange we have to have at least a government id to buy liquor and cash a check, and yet they don't have to, I dunno, vote? Let an average WASP get caught without his id and he's toast. Yes, we're giving the entire SW USA to the Mexicans, and we don't even know who they are.
tularockstar| 6.26.12 @ 11:02AM
This is pretty much the M.O. of this socialist Emperor-in-Chief! Since he has no records to stand on, he's resorting to the race card, attack on women, pandering to Hispanics and blaming Bush--as usual! This guy is dangerous and the most radical, anti-America, anyone has ever seen! And, this socialist is taking the Democratic party down with him! If the Dems are smart (but we know they're not) they would start moving away from this sinking ship of a President. But, the Dems are like sheep. They'll follow him all the way to end of the cliff.
Tom Kyba| 6.26.12 @ 11:50AM
Liberals are dead in the water if they can't use hyperbole. They honestly have no other choice because their ideas are all ill-thought out childish fantasies that collapse under any scrutiny. And to have a certifiable child-narcissist in charge of it all doesn't help any. Having to defend these cretins becomes an exercise in outright lying and demonizing. What a way to live; no honor, no class, subverting your own intelligence(?) to desperately hold on to power at all costs, blatantly pitting groups against each other etc. Sick.
JD| 6.26.12 @ 11:54AM
It's beyond insane that an ID check isn't a part of every law enforcement investigation, just like it's beyond insane that it's not required for voting. For all the things liberals want government to do for us, their disingenuity regarding ID issues makes no sense at all.
We shouldn't be spied on in our day-to-day lives, but when we interact with the government in necessary government functions that come at taxpayer expense, legitimacy should be verified.
Who Knows?| 6.26.12 @ 1:32PM
What does "beyond insane" mean?
TLP| 6.26.12 @ 5:03PM
It means You, and people like you.
Who Knows?| 6.27.12 @ 10:46AM
I know you are.
And so's your old man.
Nina in MA| 6.27.12 @ 2:46PM
And yet, they're all for fingerprinting and retinal scanning to board a plane!
Hardcard| 6.26.12 @ 12:49PM
We are witnessing the destruction of The United States of America. It's time to prepare.
Purp| 6.26.12 @ 1:14PM
Im ready for ya ...
Skippy| 6.26.12 @ 4:04PM
You have no idea how ready for you we are.
Bill84728| 6.26.12 @ 2:10PM
If you are a Hispanic whose ancestors were in Arizona before it became a state, those ancestors must have gone back to Mexico and maintained their Mexican citizenship. That makes them aliens and their kids who may have wound up in Arizona as illegal immigrants, remain illegal aliens regardless of their pedigree.
RCV| 6.26.12 @ 2:59PM
Under the Treaty of Guadaloupe Hildalgo, all residents of Arizona at the time of transfer from Mexico to the US had the option of remaining and becoming citizens of the new territory, or returning to Mexico. All but 100 chose to stay and became legal Arizona residents, and when Arizona was admitted to statehood, US citizens.
Skippy| 6.26.12 @ 4:05PM
Now every Mexican wants the same deal.
Sorry, too late.
Al Adab| 6.26.12 @ 4:50PM
RCV:
Hope you catch my comments 4:30 to current above. Have a good evening and thank you for an enjoyable conversation.
Marie| 6.26.12 @ 2:35PM
I think Obama is a con artist. Everything he does fits the definition. Him and his "people" managed to just about destroy America, but we know now that they are the witches in the so called witch hunt.
loulou| 6.26.12 @ 6:23PM
He is a con artist and a psychopath.
Nina in MA| 6.27.12 @ 2:45PM
Hmm, I think I'm going to go out and get a t-shirt that says being white is not a crime! I wonder how many protests and arguments I'd get for that? Do you think the Hispanic community or black community would be insulted? BEING WHITE IS NOT A CRIME. BEING ANY COLOR IS NOT A CRIME. WHAT is the crime is that they get special preferential treatment for the color of their skin and argue racistly at that, that the whites are at fault for all their shortcomings and problems!
MelvinNC| 6.27.12 @ 3:53PM
Since the President likes to use the term, "Its the right thing to do," I would like to reciprocate Barrack's favorite phrase: Completing a budget every year as the Constitution directs is the right thing to do. Making government efficient and more responsive to the American people is the right thing to do. Opening up Federal land for responsible energy exploration is the right thing to do. Securing this Nation's borders is the right thing to do.
Creating a more fair and equitable tax code is the right thing to do. And, I Barrack Hussein Obama do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," now that is the right thing to do.