Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signs US's toughest immigration law; Obama slams as civil rig

[Lamarr]

Re: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signs US's toughest immigration law; Obama slams as civil

3 changes surfaced but 1 inparticular caught my attention, it replaces the phrase "lawful contact" with "lawful stop, detention or arrest" to apparently clarify that officers don't need to question a victim or witness about their legal status.

Source

How does this sound?

 

[QueEx]

Re: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signs US's toughest immigration law; Obama slams as civil

3 changes surfaced but 1 inparticular caught my attention, it replaces the phrase "lawful contact" with "lawful stop, detention or arrest" to apparently clarify that officers don't need to question a victim or witness about their legal status.

Source

How does this sound?

I was going make mention of the "lawful contact" language earlier, but I got sidetracked. I had my clerk do an exhaustive search of the term and it appears that it has never before been defined. That being the case and because it was not defined in the Arizona statute, it was a "train wreck" waiting to happen.

In other words, enforcement officers were left to determine for themselves what constituted a "lawful contact." BE ADVISED that any pivotal term such as this that is left to the discretion and imagination of enforcement officials to "Make-up as they go" is, without question, unconstitutional, if for no other reason, because it fails to put the public on notice as to what a lawful contact might be.

In other words, the public has to know what conduct will subject them to punishment. Any law that one cop thinks it means this, another thinks it means that and yet another thinks it means something different is vague and due to be struck down.

Perhaps those who favor this piece of legislation will get a clue as to just how dangerous it is. All that glitters, ain't gold.

QueEx

 

[Panameno718]

Re: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signs US's toughest immigration law; Obama slams as civil

Deputy shot; illegal immigrants suspected


PHOENIX - A veteran sheriff's deputy was shot and wounded Friday after encountering a group of suspected illegal immigrants who apparently had been hauling bales of marijuana along a major smuggling corridor in the Arizona desert- a violent episode that comes amid a heated national debate over immigration.

State and federal law enforcement agencies deployed helicopters and scores of officers in pursuit of the suspects after the deputy was shot with an AK-47 on Friday afternoon, and the search continued into the night. Deputy Louie Puroll, 53, had a chunk of skin torn from just above his left kidney, but the wound was not serious. He was released Friday night from Casa Grande Regional Medical Center.

The shooting was likely to add fuel to an already fiery national debate sparked last week by the signing of an Arizona law aimed at cracking down on illegal immigration in the state.

Puroll was found in the desert after a frantic hourlong search, suffering from a gunshot wound, Pinal County sheriff's Lt. Tamatha Villar said. The 15-year department veteran had been performing smuggling interdiction work before finding the bales of marijuana and encountering the five suspected illegal immigrants, two armed with rifles.

"He was out on his routine daily patrol in the area when he encountered a load of marijuana out in the desert. He obviously confronted the individuals and took fire," Villar told The Associated Press. "I was speaking with him just a bit ago, and he's doing fantastic."

The deputy was alone about five miles from a rest stop along Interstate 8, about halfway between Phoenix and Tucson. The area is a well-known smuggling corridor for drugs and illegal immigrants headed from Mexico to Phoenix and the U.S. interior.

"Over the past 12 months we've seen an increase in the amount of drugs, and an increase in violence that has been going on in this particular corridor," Villar told KPNX.

"We've had increasing concerns in this area about being outmanned and outgunned, and unfortunately this evening, this is coming true," she added.

The shooting came as Arizona grapples with backlash over its enactment of a tough new law targeting illegal immigration. Civil rights activists, concerned the law will lead to racial profiling, have called for a boycott of the state.

The law signed by Gov. Jan Brewer last week is supported by many in the state, which has become a major gateway for drug smuggling and human trafficking from Mexico.

Its passage came amid increasing anger in Arizona about violence, drug smugglers, drop houses and other problems caused by poor border security.

Villar said the search for the suspects involved numerous helicopters from state and federal law enforcement agencies and scores of officers near Interstate 8 and Arizona 84 about 50 miles south of Phoenix.

"The deputy is a search-and-rescue deputy, so its not uncommon for them to work those areas A) looking for drugs and B) looking for people who need assistance out there," Villar said. "Obviously its a high-traffic area for drug- and human-smuggling."


http://ktar.com/index.php?nid=6&sid=1289944

 

[QueEx]

Re: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signs US's toughest immigration law; Obama slams as civil

Poll: Most support Arizona immigration law

Do most even understand the Arizona immigration law ???

Serious question. What do you think ???

Seven in 10 U.S. adults support arresting people who can't prove they're in the United States legally . . .

Does it matter HOW those arrest come about???

That is, does it matter whether the process used to affect those arrest is constitutionally flawed ???

Again, serious question. What do you think ???

71 percent of poll respondents said they'd support requiring their own police to determine people's U.S. status if there was "reasonable suspicion" the people were illegal immigrants, the poll found.

For many, including me, this is at the center of the Arizona debate are the mechanics that will be used in determining reasonable suspicion.

• How does the Arizona law enforcement official arrive at reasonable suspicion that the person is an illegal alien ??? -- BEFORE he starts to inquire into his status ???

• How does the Arizona law enforcement official DISTINGUISH between an American citizen - and - an illegal alien -- BEFORE he starts to inquire in the person's status ???

As I see it, the questions aren't about protecting illegal aliens. They are about protecting legal Americans. People, especially lately, are up-in-arms about what the government is or isn't doing. Well, this is about what the government should be allowed to do.

<font size="3">How far do you allow the government to trample on individual liberty, in pursuit of some other goal ???

How far ???</font size>

QueEx

 

[QueEx]

Re: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signs US's toughest immigration law; Obama slams as civil

But even beyond that, as political fervor in this country ebbs and flows, there is another huge issue always lurking that people tend to just overlook: in our representative form of government where people elect representatives to look out for their interest, what is the responsibility of the elected official ???

• Is the elected official to merely vote on issues the way he perceives a majority of his constituents wants him to vote ??? (that is so problematic I could write a book, right here); OR

• Has the person been elected to exercise good judgment and to make decisions in the "Best Interest" of the people ??? (because what the majority may want (i.e., Segregation) might not be in the best interest of the people!).

Ultimately, an elected official takes an oath to uphold & defend the Constitution, whether state or federal.

One more time. In upholding and defending the Constitution, whether state or federal, what is the responsibility of the elected official ???

• To vote the way he perceives a majority of his constituents wants him to vote ??? OR

• To exercise good judgment and to make decisions (vote) in the "Best Interest" of the people ???

? ? ?

QueEx

 

[QueEx]

Re: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signs US's toughest immigration law; Obama slams as civil

Simple, you "demagnetize America". They come here for the jobs & the benefits. Fine employers & cut off any benefits they may be recieving. They will leave Que........and we won't have to pay a dime to deport anyone. My approach is a little different from the Gov in AZ but no rights will be violated & no racial profiling

Excerpt for McClatchy article "Amid fuss over illegal immigrants, they're already going home":

. . . at the end of the Bush administration, the Department of Homeland Security stepped up work site raids after President George W. Bush failed to get immigration overhaul legislation through Congress and angered his conservative base. Agents zeroed in on industries such as meatpacking that had come to depend on the undocumented work force.

While the Obama administration has scaled back those raids, it has stepped up scrutiny of companies' immigration paperwork. In 2009, Immigration and Customs Enforcement audited 1,444 companies, more than double the number the year before. So far this year, ICE has audited more than 1,180.

The number of employers fined for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants has risen dramatically as well. In 2006, no employer was fined. In 2008, ICE fined 18 employers, amounting to about $675,000 in fines. In the first five months of this fiscal year, ICE has fined 63 employers or issued almost $1.9 million in fines.

James Spero, a deputy assistant director for ICE, said agents are focusing on employers rather than the illegal workers.

"It's a pivot," he said. "The goal is to build a case against the employer. We feel that's the most effective use of our resources to reduce the magnet or pull of illegal employment."

Audits are more effective than the raids, said Reed, the former immigration official whose Arizona company now helps companies comply with immigration law.

 

[Lamarr]

Re: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signs US's toughest immigration law; Obama slams as civil

I was going make mention of the "lawful contact" language earlier, but I got sidetracked. I had my clerk do an exhaustive search of the term and it appears that it has never before been defined. That being the case and because it was not defined in the Arizona statute, it was a "train wreck" waiting to happen.

In other words, enforcement officers were left to determine for themselves what constituted a "lawful contact." BE ADVISED that any pivotal term such as this that is left to the discretion and imagination of enforcement officials to "Make-up as they go" is, without question, unconstitutional, if for no other reason, because it fails to put the public on notice as to what a lawful contact might be.

In other words, the public has to know what conduct will subject them to punishment. Any law that one cop thinks it means this, another thinks it means that and yet another thinks it means something different is vague and due to be struck down.

Perhaps those who favor this piece of legislation will get a clue as to just how dangerous it is. All that glitters, ain't gold.

QueEx

right! Regardless of the change in language, I'm beginning to think it will lead to officers using 'selective' enforcement in many cases. While it may be a short-term solution, I don't think it solves the problem. Still prefer my "Demagnetize America" approach.

Hate to say it but AZ acted because of the lack of attention from DC. Arizonans, or likely voters, wanted something done. Furthermore, it appears voters prefer this method as opposed to a 'pathway to citizenship'.

On the flip side: it probably wouldn't be an issue if the economy was in better shape.

My conspiratorial side asks the question: Why would they roll out this legislation right before Cinco De Mayo? Knowing there would be opposition, I'm just sayin

 

[QueEx]

Re: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signs US's toughest immigration law; Obama slams as civil

right! Regardless of the change in language, I'm beginning to think it will lead to officers using 'selective' enforcement in many cases.

Right. From my perspective selective enforcement or, more importantly, enforcement that is arbitrary and capricious, is A BIG ISSUE -- because I believe it is imperative to maintain the integrity of the Constitution.

We should not allow the emotions to erode aspects of the Constitution because at the time its seems the expedient thing to do -- because it will later come back to haunt us. For example, any rule that allows a trampling of civil liberties to get at illegal aliens will, in all probability, later allow a trampling of my and your civil liberties in a context not then imagined.

BUT, none of that is to say that I support illegal immigration. I don't.

Hate to say it but AZ acted because of the lack of attention from DC. Arizonans, or likely voters, wanted something done.

Really? I don't know what was "in the mind" of those who thought this bill up -- and I don't think that you do either. We both know, however, that both political parties have an interest in immigration, A-K-A Hispanic voters. We both know that illegal immigrants have an interest in this debate. The white supremacist have an interest in the debate. AND, we both know that Latinos who are otherwise legal have interest in the debate (it seems to get lost in all of this that a lot of "Legal Latinos" want their illegal brethren to be made legal -- which I think is THE REAL ISSUE).

So, I would be real careful saying I know WHY Arizona acted. Perhaps, the way the bill was written gives us a clue as to what the writers had in mind. NO?

Furthermore, it appears voters prefer this method as opposed to a 'pathway to citizenship'.

What do the people of Arizona really know about this Act ??? They may want something done, but who says they have a clue as to what the Act does or doesn't do?

On the flip side: it probably wouldn't be an issue if the economy was in better shape.

Perhaps. But in every difficulty lies an opportunity.

My conspiratorial side asks the question: Why would they roll out this legislation right before Cinco De Mayo? Knowing there would be opposition, I'm just sayin

Good question.

Another good one might be: Who (other than the so-called people) stands to benefit ???

QueEx

 

[nittie]

Re: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signs US's toughest immigration law; Obama slams as civil

5 cops shot in Detroit this weekend over drugs. 24 people killed in Mexico this weekend over drugs. If something isn't done to stop the influx of drugs it's over for our way of life. The Arizona law has it's flaws but at least it tries to address the problem that's more than what the Fed is doing it's almost like they are selling drugs themselves.

 

[Cruise]

Re: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signs US's toughest immigration law; Obama slams as civil

I always wondered how people living in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and Communist China could tolerate their governments.

Yet, all I have to do is look at the average American to get my answer.

5 cops shot in Detroit this weekend over drugs. 24 people killed in Mexico this weekend over drugs. If something isn't done to stop the influx of drugs it's over for our way of life. The Arizona law has it's flaws but at least it tries to address the problem that's more than what the Fed is doing it's almost like they are selling drugs themselves.

How do you define this term?

 

[nittie]

Re: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signs US's toughest immigration law; Obama slams as civil

Being able to sit in your living room and not worry about getting shot to death. Ballgames in the park, kids playing in the streets, block parties, those sort of things.

 

[Lamarr]

Re: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signs US's toughest immigration law; Obama slams as civil

The white supremacist have an interest in the debate. AND, we both know that Latinos who are otherwise legal have interest in the debate (it seems to get lost in all of this that a lot of "Legal Latinos" want their illegal brethren to be made legal -- which I think is THE REAL ISSUE).

Well, there are those who immigrate the 'right' way and help others get legal, which I don't really have an issue with. From what I see & hear, it's their unwillingness to assimilate. Now, I certainly don't want to start another thread about that but it plays a factor.

What do the people of Arizona really know about this Act ??? They may want something done, but who says they have a clue as to what the Act does or doesn't do?

I'll admit, most probably just read the headline: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signs US's toughest immigration law and that's the extent of their quest for info. Kinda like, if it ticks Obama off, it must be a good thing (which is sad)

 

[Lamarr]

Re: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signs US's toughest immigration law; Obama slams as civil

Good question.

Another good one might be: Who (other than the so-called people) stands to benefit ???

QueEx

The Fed / Banks / Treasury benefit because it extends the tax base by 12-30 million individuals. What I find interesting is the same people who acted as enablers to this movement will now benefit

 

[QueEx]

Re: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signs US's toughest immigration law; Obama slams as civil

The Fed / Banks / Treasury benefit because it extends the tax base by 12-30 million individuals. What I find interesting is the same people who acted as enablers to this movement will now benefit

<font size="3">What did the Federal Reserve or the U.S. Treasury have to do with the Arizona Legislature's passage of that state's immigration law ? ? ?</font size>

 

[QueEx]

Re: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signs US's toughest immigration law; Obama slams as civil

 

[Panameno718]

Re: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signs US's toughest immigration law; Obama slams as civil

Mexico's illegals laws tougher than Arizona's

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/03/mexicos-illegals-laws-tougher-than-arizonas/

Mexican President Felipe Calderon denounced as "racial discrimination" an Arizona law giving state and local police the authority to arrest suspected illegal immigrants and vowed to use all means at his disposal to defend Mexican nationals against a law he called a "violation of human rights."

But the legislation, signed April 23 by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, is similar to Reglamento de la Ley General de Poblacion — the General Law on Population enacted in Mexico in April 2000, which mandates that federal, local and municipal police cooperate with federal immigration authorities in that country in the arrests of illegal immigrants.

Under the Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony, punishable by up to two years in prison. Immigrants who are deported and attempt to re-enter can be imprisoned for 10 years. Visa violators can be sentenced to six-year terms. Mexicans who help illegal immigrants are considered criminals.

The law also says Mexico can deport foreigners who are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," violate Mexican law, are not "physically or mentally healthy" or lack the "necessary funds for their sustenance" and for their dependents.

"This sounds like the kind of law that a rational nation would have to protect itself against illegal immigrants — that would stop and punish the very people who are violating the law," said Rep. Steve King of Iowa, ranking Republican on the House Judiciary subcommittee on immigration, citizenship, refugees, border security and international law.

"Why would Mr. Calderon have any objections to an Arizona law that is less draconian than his own, one he has pledged to enforce?" Mr. King said.

Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on terrorism and homeland security, described Mr. Calderon's comments as "hypocritical to say the least."

"I would have expected more from Mr. Calderon," said Mr. Kyl, who serves as the Senate minority whip. "We are spending millions of dollars to help Mexico fight the drug cartels that pose a threat to his government, and he doesn't seem to recognize our concerns. He ought to be apologizing to us instead of condemning us."

Mr. Kyl, along with fellow Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, has introduced a 10-point comprehensive border security plan to combat illegal immigration, drug and human smuggling, and violent crime along the southwestern border. It includes the deployment of National Guard troops, an increase in U.S. Border Patrol agents and 700 miles of fencing, along with other equipment and funding upgrades.

He said skyrocketing violence on the border, including the recent killing of an Arizona rancher by an illegal immigrant he had gone to assist, has not gone unnoticed by the public, adding that until the federal government provides the necessary funding and manpower to adequately secure the southwestern border, Arizona will not long remain the only state to pass legislation to do it on its own.

 

[MASTERBAKER]

Progressive Liberal Animation: ‘Police State Pete’ Looks for Illegals in Arizona

<object width="450" height="370"><param name="movie" value="http://www.liveleak.com/e/3de_1273242138"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.liveleak.com/e/3de_1273242138" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" allowscriptaccess="always" width="450" height="370"></embed></object>

 

[QueEx]

Re: Progressive Liberal Animation: ‘Police State Pete’ Looks for Illegals in Arizona

<font size="5"><center>
Federal Judge blocks Arizona
from enforcing parts of immigration law</font size></center>


Judge Susan Bolton of U.S. District Court issued a preliminary injunction against sections of the law, scheduled to take effect today.

What the Judge Blocked:

• That portion of the Arizona law which called for police officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws

• That part of the Arizona law which required immigrants to prove that they were authorized to be in the country or risk state charges.

• Provisions that allowed the police to hold anyone arrested for any crime until his immigration status was determined.

• A requirement that police, while enforcing other laws, question people's immigration status.

• A requirement that authorities verify the status of all arrested people before their release from jail.

• A requirement that immigrants obtain or carry immigration registration papers.

• A ban on illegal immigrants from soliciting work in public places.

• A provision that allows for warrantless arrests when people commit crimes that can result in their deportation.

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_15620894?nclick_check=1

 

[Lamarr]

Re: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signs US's toughest immigration law; Obama slams as civil

<font size="3">What did the Federal Reserve or the U.S. Treasury have to do with the Arizona Legislature's passage of that state's immigration law ? ? ?</font size>

I hate to answer questions with questions, thats why I remained silent.

But after this ruling, Did you really think the Fed govt would allow AZ to show any state sovereignty? The writing was already on the wall.

I truly believe this administration, and the last two, really don't want borders

 

[QueEx]

Re: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signs US's toughest immigration law; Obama slams as civil

I hate to answer questions with questions, thats why I remained silent.

But after this ruling, Did you really think the Fed govt would allow AZ to show any state sovereignty? The writing was already on the wall.

I truly believe this administration, and the last two, really don't want borders

I don't analyze things, especially legal matters, in terms of "do I really think . . .". I thought the court would do what it did be cause of established legal principles -- which I've stated in this and the other thread discussing the Arizona immigration act.

QueEx

 

[muckraker10021]

Re: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signs US's toughest immigration law; Obama slams as civil

The author of Arizona's racial profiling law is state senator Russell Pearce. Pearce is a white supremacist & Nazi sympathizer. Pearce is a racist law machine, pumping out statute after statute targeting the Latino segment of Arizona's population. 95% of the "corporate-media-of-distraction" has avoided informing their viewers about senator Pearce.

White Supremacist Arizona Legislator Russell Pearce Recalled
Creator of "Papers Please Law" - Senate Bill 1070

November 9, 2011


It was not just improbable. For most observers, it simply seemed impossible.

Russell Pearce, object of a recall election in his comfortably conservative east Mesa District 18, could not be beat.

But now he was. Jerry Lewis, a novice politician but a credible conservative, is comfortably ahead in Arizona's first-ever legislative recall election, pending the count of provisional ballots.

Think about that a moment.

In early 2010, the Arizona Senate president was considered among the most powerful state lawmakers in the country. He was the creator of Senate Bill 1070,

A designation Americans coast to coast would come to know as shorthand for draconian immigration law. His bill was judged a furious backlash against perceived federal indifference to border protection, and Pearce became the furious face of the movement.

Then, suddenly, it all changed. Suddenly, the most powerful man in the Legislature has become the first Arizona lawmaker in history to be recalled.

Now, the rejection of Pearce in his own once-impervious district truly is complete.

The Senate president had denigrated his recall opponents as "far left-wing anarchists." He has dismissed the challenge against him as a trifling, an effort barely worth his attention. He has raised nearly a quarter-million dollars to fight that trifling, at last report.

It was hardly a trifling to Pearce's closest supporters. Indeed, they propped up a faux candidate to draw anti-Pearce voters from Jerry Lewis, who has proved to be a competitive candidate in his own right.

Recall supporters have made the point: It is indeed possible to extract a politician voters cannot abide. Gathering signatures. Finding a candidate. Mounting a campaign. It can be done.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarep...-titan-poised-fall-showing-process-works.html

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/09/politics/arizona-recall-vote/

 

[QueEx]

Re: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signs US's toughest immigration law; Obama slams as civil


Supreme Court sides with U.S. in Arizona immigration case




CNN
June 25, 2012


Washington (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled largely in favor of the federal government Monday in a case involving Arizona's immigration law, but it upheld the most controversial provision involving police checks on people's immigration status while enforcing other laws.

In a decision sure to ripple across the political landscape in a presidential election year, the court's 5-3 ruling struck down key parts of the Arizona law.

"The national government has significant power to regulate immigration," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion, adding that "Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the state may not pursue policies that undermined federal law."​

The majority concluded the federal government had the power to block SB1070, though the court upheld one of the most controversial parts of the bill -- a provision that lets police check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws if "reasonable suspicion" exists that the person is in the United States illegally.

In its ruling, the high court made clear the immigration status provision could still face future constitutional challenges depending on how the state enforces it.

The federal government challenged four provisions of the Arizona law that never were enforced, pending the legal ruling.

Provisions struck down included:

• Authorizing police to arrest immigrants without warrant where "probable cause" exists that they committed any public offense making them removable from the country.

• Making it a state crime for "unauthorized immigrants" to fail to carry registration papers and other government identification.

• Forbidding those not authorized for employment in the United States to apply, solicit or perform work. That would include immigrants standing in a parking lot who "gesture or nod" their willingness to be employed.

The majority included Kennedy, Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Steven Breyer, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Justice Elena Kagan did not hear the case. Before taking the bench last year, she had been involved in the administration's initial legal opposition to the law as solicitor general.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the minority, argued the court's ruling encroached on Arizona's sovereign powers.

"If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign state," Scalia wrote in the dissent backed by Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas.


The ruling is likely to have widespread implications for other states that have or are considering similar laws.

Several other states followed Arizona's lead by passing laws meant to deter illegal immigrants. Similar laws are under challenge in lower courts in Georgia, Alabama, Utah, Indiana and South Carolina. Arizona's appeal is the first to reach the Supreme Court.

The outcome of the Arizona appeal could set important precedent on similar laws pending across the country.

The case is Arizona v. U.S. (11-182) and is to be the last argued before the high court this term.


SOURCE:http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/25/politics/scotus-arizona-law/index.html

 

[code_pirahna]

Re: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signs US's toughest immigration law; Obama slams as civil

I just heard on MSNBC that this immigration law was sponsored by the prison industry....

They are paying lawmakers to throw folks into prison.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Re: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signs US's toughest immigration law; Obama slams as civil

I'm amazed at the mainstream media acting like Arizona won anything with this or like this is a "draw". Four sections were up for review, three were struck down and the fourth was put on hold until it was actually implemented. That's a loss on most scorecards. I don't expect the right wing media to tell the truth but damn, whatever happened to the "liberal media"?

 

[thoughtone]

Re: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signs US's toughest immigration law; Obama slams as civil

When the court decision was announced yesterday, Faux Snooze had on their ticker "Supreme Court partially upholds Arizona Immigration Law" and MSNBC had on their ticker, "Supreme Court strikes down majority of Arizona Immigration law."

Two sides of the same coin.

 

[SPECTRE1]

Re: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signs US's toughest immigration law; Obama slams as civil

That territory belongs to Mexico, it is their right to exist on land that belongs to their country. If anything, Mexico should deport Jan Brewer and Joe Arapio out of the country.

 

[muckraker10021]

Re: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signs US's toughest immigration law; Obama slams as civil

I'm amazed at the mainstream media acting like Arizona won anything with this or like this is a "draw". Four sections were up for review, three were struck down and the fourth was put on hold until it was actually implemented. That's a loss on most scorecards. I don't expect the right wing media to tell the truth but damn, whatever happened to the "liberal media"?

You're right, most of the "media of distraction" did not tell the truth about the SCOTUS "Papers Please" ruling, it was a slam dunk win for Obama & Holder, that's probably why they told the mostly ignorant viewers that it was a “split decision”— pure bull shit. Lawrence O’Donnell in the video below breaks it down.


<object width="420" height="245" id="msnbc855099"><param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" /><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=47956696&amp;width=420&amp;height=245" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed name="msnbc855099" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=47956696&amp;width=420&amp;height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 420px;">Visit msnbc.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com">breaking news</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">world news</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">news about the economy</a></p>

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Re: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signs US's toughest immigration law; Obama slams as civil

When the court decision was announced yesterday, Faux Snooze had on their ticker "Supreme Court partially upholds Arizona Immigration Law" and MSNBC had on their ticker, "Supreme Court strikes down majority of Arizona Immigration law."

Two sides of the same coin.

No. One of them is telling a quarter-truth (less than a half truth but not a full lie) while the other is reporting the news accurately.

 

[thoughtone]

Re: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signs US's toughest immigration law; Obama slams as civil

No. One of them is telling a quarter-truth (less than a half truth but not a full lie) while the other is reporting the news accurately.

Yes, but you must recognize the biases on both sides.

 

[QueEx]

Re: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signs US's toughest immigration law; Obama slams as civil

I'm amazed at the mainstream media acting like Arizona won anything with this or like this is a "draw". Four sections were up for review, three were struck down and the fourth was put on hold until it was actually implemented. That's a loss on most scorecards. I don't expect the right wing media to tell the truth but damn, whatever happened to the "liberal media"?

At the time when I posted the story above, CNN had the "closest" headline to the truth. I searched google news looking for a story with a more accurate headline, but none was to be found. Of course, we all know that its not the headline - - but the story that follows that counts, but we also know that many people don't get past the headline and for many others the headline sets the tone of the story.

But, what about Governor <s>Ugly ass</s> Brewer (her face looks like a geography map) - who self-declared a victory and no matter how much the commentators/reporters pointed out the "facts" -- she would merely repeat her self-declared victory. Wild! But, an unwitting aid, I believe, to Obama's cause.

 

[QueEx]

Re: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signs US's toughest immigration law; Obama slams as civil