Arizona immigration law goes into effect......

[JPhillips]

But if a car of citizens of Hispanic descent is stopped for a traffic offense and the passengers can't produce ID they will likely be detained rather than the officer risking being sued.

[Cringer]

You all have been distracted from the real issues the government doesn't want you to focus on in our country. Suckers.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by TroyF

1) I don't know how you can think having a secure border is worse than having an unsecure one. The government screwed up with the 9/11 guys. We know this.

I don't. I'm saying it's not a big deal compared to other stuff. Border security comes up when politicians don't want us focusing on other issues that matter. They don't want you to know that health care is still fucked up and the banks are going to still get away with dry anal raping us after this "reform" talk.

Originally Posted by TroyF

2) Those crime studies cause me to laugh a bit. It's using stats based off of incarceration. Let's say the average American commits a major felony and wants to get away before an investigation heats up. How many know how to get smuggled across the border? How many of us have family or connections in another country who we could go back to? How many of us know how to get fake documentation to fool authorities?

They know the problems of our systems better than we do because they have to stay on the fringe of it all the time. Now, before this jumps into a "you're just being racist" bitch fest, I'm not. I don't care WHAT the number is. We should be doing everything we can to eliminate illegal entry into this country. I don't understand anyone who gives the opposite view of that.

Lot of other stats out there. We've had relative lax borders over the past couple decades and seen a massive influx of illegals. Major crime is down nationwide and in most major cities. You can argue that they make our country more dangerous, but at some point you have to provide some evidence to back it up.

Most illegals are here to make money to support themselves and their family. They don't want trouble and go out of their way to avoid it.

[Dutch]

Considering that President Obama has spent about 1/100th of the time on Border Security that he's spent on nationalizing health care, I think we're okay to spend a week or so discussing it.

[MrBug708]

Uggh...protests all day tomorrow in LA. It's all good, its not like we have...you know...traffic issues. Maybe the protesters that run onto the freeway actually get hit by a car this year

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Uggh...protests all day tomorrow in LA. It's all good, its not like we have...you know...traffic issues. Maybe the protesters that run onto the freeway actually get hit by a car this year

Yeah, always thought the protesters were doing themselves a disservice by pissing people off. I mean you're supposed to convince others to side with you and making their travel hell isn't helping. There was an anti-war rally back when I worked in the Loop and it basically took me an extra hour and a half to get home. I was pissed beyond belief.

[JonInMiddleGA]

My Way News - Arizona deputy shot; illegal immigrants suspected

PHOENIX (AP) - 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.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Undocumented workers are prime targets for civil rights abuses right now.

Maybe they shouldn't be here to begin with.

I have ZERO sympathy for illegals. I HOPE they live in fear each day they live in this country.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

My Way News - Arizona deputy shot; illegal immigrants suspected

PHOENIX (AP) - 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.

This is the biggest reason that action is needed in Arizona, but also the biggest reason this law is not the answer.

Living in AZ I have abviously followed this whole situation with interest and feel it was a knee jerk reaction to the federal government dragging their feet. I believe this is the 4th or 5th Police officer or border patrol shot by illegal immigrant(s) over the last 2 years. I couldn't find exact numbers in a quick search, so I am going by memory and I do know 2 of the shootings have been fatal.

The law as it is now won't stop this and in fact may place officers at an even greater risk if anyone doing something illegal around the border towns / drug corridors knows they can be asked for immigrant status, which if not proven could uncover their actions, when before they may have been able to avoid detection if questioned.

The biggest threats posed by illegal immigrants come from the criminal element. The fields I pass on my way into phoenix filled with day workers tending crops are likely to contain many illegals doing nothing more than an honset days work. Should they be here? No, but they do contribute to the economy and are by and large decent people. So institute reform that gives them limited amnesty, allowing them to get work visa's and making sure they pay into the system in terms of taxes. Allow the possibility of citizenship if they keep their noses clean for a period of time, providing they pass the current immigration requirements already in place. These folks are not the enemy and are one of two reasons these protests are occuring. (The other reason should not need explaining)

That leaves the two biggest negative impacts and how do we deal with them. Crime due to drugs or just plain riff raff and the economic drain on the states coffers in public assistance monies that people here illegally do not have a right to. Amazingly there are some opponents of this law who think it is OK for illegals to receive public assistance....to them, fuck you. Do things the right way or reap no benefits from the the system.

Now the two issues themselves and my opinions, which aren't worth much, but what the hell.

Crime Issue - Drug related crime and smuggling is rampant along the border towns and throughout the state. Criminals coming into this country illegally are a threat to national security whether their intent is terrorism or sneaking in a couple of kilos of weed. Because of this the federal government could institute harsher penalties/longer sentances for crimes commited by illegals, especially drug related crimes. Put pressure on Mexico to allow limited authority to US federal agents in Mexico in investigating and bringing the hammer down on cartels or those that commit a crime in the US then scamper back over the border. At the very least push for a more efficient joint task force between the countries that gives the US more power and makes the extradition process even easier.

Obviously this would come at a cost to the US government, but could we really trust Mexico to house these inmates and make sure the sentences were carried out with the amount of corruption in their system? No. A real extreme, though highly improbablr answer would be push Mexico to share in the cost of the US dealing with these criminals, which may force them to act with a bit more urgency on their side of the border. Again, an extreme and unlikely option.

Take resources out of the middle east and put them on our borders for gods sake. Increased surveillance / deterrants couldn't hurt. I would even support limited troop deployments in hot spots to discourage illegal entry. This would of course spur protests, but if there would was a "guest" worker program in place where those with good intent had the opportunity to work here if properly registered then there would be no real grounds to bitch.

In terms of the drain on public assistance, make stiffer penalties for welfare and medicaid fraud so that those that get caught have a greater "incentive" to roll on the people that supply phony ID's and SSN cards, then come down like REAL hard on these people with harsh prison sentances. Again, this should be deemed a threat to national security, since technically they could be or are supplying ID's to terrorists and criminals.

The one thing that pisses me off about some of the protest rhetoric is how a portion of people scream that illegals have rights. Yes they do as people of the world and should be treated fairly in that regard, but they have no fucking rights to commit crimes here, steal benefits here or even be here under totally honorable circumstances, if there was a system in place that would allow them access to work here are as non US citizens and they chose not to follow it.

There is a lot of work to be done here and it will take a lot of time and resources, but action is overdue and as long as there is something in place that allows some type of amnesty for the "good" folks here illegally that benefits them and the US, I have no problem being as harsh as possible on those that don't fit that profile.

To summarize my long winded post, the law as it is puts an undue burden on law enforcement and creates a risk of litigation the state of Arizona can not afford right now.

It drives the "honest" hard working illegals to other states, since they have no options to obtain a work permit under some type of amnesty / work program, which actually has a negative effect on the economy.

It makes the criminal element even more dangerous since they have even less to lose now and can be challenged at anytime (This is in their minds whether it is the actual content of the law or not) which potentially makes them even more violent. It could also encourage more people to seek fraudulent documentation, which opens the public assistance programs and healthcare up to further abuse.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But if a car of citizens of Hispanic descent is stopped for a traffic offense and the passengers can't produce ID they will likely be detained rather than the officer risking being sued.

The courts would have to work out what "reasonable suspicion" means in terms of the crime of illegal immigrant trespassing, just like they have with any other crime. There's no way race is enough. There's already some case law with this regarding the federal government, who they can pull over near the border and when, etc.

And the officers can't be sued for not acting without reasonable suspicion.

[JPhillips]

Sure they can be sued. Any citizen in AZ can sue if they think an agency or individual has implemented a policy that keeps federal immigration laws from being fully enforced. They may lose, but that doesn't mean they can't file a lawsuit.

I'm also not arguing that race is enough to stop the car, but I think we can agree that an officer can find a "valid" reason to pull over a car if they want to. The question is what happens when citizens can't produce ID. Does the officer let them go and risk being sued if it turns out they are illegal or do they detain them until they can produce proof of citizenship?

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Sure they can be sued. Any citizen in AZ can sue if they think an agency or individual has implemented a policy that keeps federal immigration laws from being fully enforced. They may lose, but that doesn't mean they can't file a lawsuit.

I'm also not arguing that race is enough to stop the car, but I think we can agree that an officer can find a "valid" reason to pull over a car if they want to. The question is what happens when citizens can't produce ID. Does the officer let them go and risk being sued if it turns out they are illegal or do they detain them until they can produce proof of citizenship?

The stop just gets you to the lawful contact (made more clear by the amendments to the law signed recently). Then, you STILL need reasonable suspicion that someone's illegal. Race alone won't be enough. The courts will eventually determine what is. But you have say, 10 Hispanics in a van, with no license plate, less than a mile from the border, and none of them speak English, and none of them have any documentation whatsoever, the officer SHOULD make a reasonable effort to determine their immigration status. If they can't do that through federal government contact (and they're trying to facilitate that kind of communication), then they should be detained.

You can sue anyone for anything now. Nothing's stopping you from going to the courthouse, paying the appropriate filing fees, and suing any police officer you want for anything. No matter how ridiculous, the government will have to respond to the lawsuit, if it's filed correctly. Of course if your suit is ridiculous, you'll have to pay all of the government's expenses in answering you, and seeking dismissal of the suit. This comes up a lot with prisoners. Some prisoners sue the government (because they have nothing better to do), hundreds of times, for every little problem that comes up in prison. Some jurisdictions have tried to make laws that say, for example, if you're a prisoner, and you've filed X number of suits that have been dismissed as "frivolous", then your lawsuit has to be approved by a judge before it even gets rolling. These are very controversial statutes, because they cut off true access to the courts.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Considering that President Obama has spent about 1/100th of the time on Border Security that he's spent on nationalizing health care, I think we're okay to spend a week or so discussing it.

1/100th of 0 is still 0.

[JPhillips]

But this law adds rational for filing suits. It isn't the same as it's always been.

I'd agree with you on the van stop you described, but what about the stop where the driver has a license, but the passenger doesn't have ID and doesn't speak English? What does the officer do then to protect themselves and their town from a lawsuit?

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But this law adds rational for filing suits. It isn't the same as it's always been.

I'd agree with you on the van stop you described, but what about the stop where the driver has a license, but the passenger doesn't have ID and doesn't speak English? What does the officer do then to protect themselves and their town from a lawsuit?

You REALLY have this lawsuit thing on your brain. At least you have been consistent.

Personally, I think you're being extremely Chicken Little over how far that stuff will go. And I don't know if you really believe that stuff, or if you're just pushing it up because you don't have enough to keep arguing about the other stuff the law does.

[Izulde]

I'm not sure if this was posted or not, but Arizona's becoming racist in their legislative policies.

Arizona legislature bans ethnic-studies programs - Yahoo! News

Amusing thing is, I have a deaf speech-related accent, so I'd be banned from teaching in an Arizona classroom with ESL students.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

1/100th of 0 is still 0.

By nationalizing, please read: taxing somebody else's money.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Dutch

By nationalizing, please read: taxing somebody else's money.

That's not what nationalizing means.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Izulde

I'm not sure if this was posted or not, but Arizona's becoming racist in their legislative policies.

Arizona legislature bans ethnic-studies programs - Yahoo! News

Amusing thing is, I have a deaf speech-related accent, so I'd be banned from teaching in an Arizona classroom with ESL students.

It just hurts the businesses in the state. When MLK Day was banned, they lost hundreds of millions in business. Conventions stopped going there, the Super Bowl changed venues, and so on. They only have themselves to blame when unemployment there goes up and tax revenues go down.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

You REALLY have this lawsuit thing on your brain. At least you have been consistent.

Personally, I think you're being extremely Chicken Little over how far that stuff will go. And I don't know if you really believe that stuff, or if you're just pushing it up because you don't have enough to keep arguing about the other stuff the law does.

It's good to know you're back to assuming I'm disingenuous.

The citizen enforcement provision is going to be the single biggest problem with the implementation of the bill. If you don't believe me listen to some of the law enforcement officials in AZ that are saying this bill puts officers in the impossible position of risking lawsuits for being too lenient or risking lawsuits for profiling.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

If you don't believe me listen to some of the law enforcement officials in AZ that are saying this bill puts officers in the impossible position of risking lawsuits for being too lenient or risking lawsuits for profiling.

I've already given the wording of the bill. We have a society where you risk a lawsuit by opening your front door in the morning. Doesn't mean any of these lawsuits have merit. The bill's wording is pretty clear about requiring a policy, i.e. having a municipality decide they don't want to support the law and tells their officers to let folks go. THAT'S going to win a suit. I doubt this will increase the number of lawsuits thrown at a municipality, it just may redirect their focus. Barring of course the handful of politically-motivated staged lawsuits that are intended to make the bill look bad even though they don't have a chance of getting by the courts.

[JPhillips]

Where do you see policy defined that way?

36 G. A PERSON WHO IS A LEGAL RESIDENT OF THIS STATE MAY BRING AN ACTION
37 IN SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE ANY OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A
38 COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ADOPTS
39 OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY OR PRACTICE THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT
40 OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL
41 LAW.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Where do you see policy defined that way?

36 G. A PERSON WHO IS A LEGAL RESIDENT OF THIS STATE MAY BRING AN ACTION
37 IN SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE ANY OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A
38 COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ADOPTS
39 OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY OR PRACTICE THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT
40 OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL
41 LAW.

The courts will determine what that means, based on their perceived intent of the legislature. I believe the intent is to prevent local police departments or mayors from giving illegal immigrants some kind of artificial "status" that prevents enforcement of that crime in those borders. But we'll see what the courts say. I really doubt we're going to see any successful lawsuits because an officer didn't detain someone after a traffic stop. And this that goes way beyond what this statute is saying.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Where do you see policy defined that way?

THAT ADOPTS OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY OR PRACTICE THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT

I've shrunk it to the key part. I pointed this out before, you seem to not agree that "ADOPTS OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY OR PRACTICE" requires something formal.

[JPhillips]

We don't know if it means to adopt something formal. The courts may eventually decide that, but right now the language of the bill is very vague and certainly doesn't make it clear that a formal policy must be written or articulated clearly. This is going to have to be settled by the courts which can only be done through lawsuits. Given the radial stance of some anti-immigrant groups in AZ I don't think it's at all out of the realm of possibility for lawsuits to be filed almost routinely.

Or the AZ legislature could fix this easily, but given that the whole intent of this section is to force the hands of anyone who may not see immigration as their top priority, I doubt we'll see that happen.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

The courts will determine what that means, based on their perceived intent of the legislature. I believe the intent is to prevent local police departments or mayors from giving illegal immigrants some kind of artificial "status" that prevents enforcement of that crime in those borders. But we'll see what the courts say. I really doubt we're going to see any successful lawsuits because an officer didn't detain someone after a traffic stop. And this that goes way beyond what this statute is saying.

I'd agree on any single traffic stop, but I don't think it's that clear if people aren't detained over a series of traffic stops.

Look at it this way. If there was similar statute for full enforcement of federal anti-discrimination laws don't you think there would be people suing just to force a maximalist stance by local law enforcement?

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

We don't know if it means to adopt something formal. The courts may eventually decide that, but right now the language of the bill is very vague and certainly doesn't make it clear that a formal policy must be written or articulated clearly. This is going to have to be settled by the courts which can only be done through lawsuits. Given the radial stance of some anti-immigrant groups in AZ I don't think it's at all out of the realm of possibility for lawsuits to be filed almost routinely.

Or the AZ legislature could fix this easily, but given that the whole intent of this section is to force the hands of anyone who may not see immigration as their top priority, I doubt we'll see that happen.

I guess the word "policy" just means something different to me than a cop deciding he's not suspicious of the guys in the back seat.

[JPhillips]

The bill says "policy or practice".

[DanGarion]

[cuervo72]

Eh, might as well put this in here.

Students Kicked Off Campus for Wearing American Flag Tees - NBCBAYAREA- msnbc.com

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Another salvo fired between the Arizona governor and Obama...........

[flere-imsaho]

I wonder how Arizona likes a Governor who spends her time focusing on national issues instead of, you know, dealing with her state's budget crisis.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I wonder how Arizona likes a Governor who spends her time focusing on national issues instead of, you know, dealing with her state's budget crisis.

1. Is it a national issue or a state issue (or both)?
2. Would the budget crisis be anywhere near the situation it is if they didn't have the illegal immigration/drug problem and all its related issues to pay for?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

1. Is it a national issue or a state issue (or both)?

She's telling Obama to "do his job". Sounds like she thinks it's a national issue.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

She's telling Obama to "do his job". Sounds like she thinks it's a national issue.

So you can imagine her frustration that she's having to do the work that the federal government should be dealing with. I know I've been in situations where I've had to take care of things as a manager that my superior was supposed to be taking care of. It's a very frustrating situation. You're wasting time doing someone else's job when you should be focusing on your own.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

You're wasting time doing someone else's job when you should be focusing on your own.

Which was my point.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Which was my point.

Of course it wasn't, but the creative editing skills are duly noted. It's an embarrassing situation that our federal government has neglected the security of our borders to the point that something like this has to happen to make 'change' take place.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

MBBF, seriously, you've made your point. After hearing you railing about this issue throughout the Bush presidency and into Obama's, we know how you feel about this.

Wait, what?

[JPhillips]

I'd take the issue more seriously if she didn't look like the wicked witch.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Of course it wasn't, but the creative editing skills are duly noted.

Forgive me for highlighting, yet again (with your own words), your own particular worldview where all of our problems are owned by Democratic politicians and all of our solutions by Republican politicians.

Until you have the courage to admit your inherent bias, you'll remain the Sideshow Bob of FOFC political threads.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

MBBF, seriously, you've made your point. After hearing you railing about this issue throughout the Bush presidency and into Obama's, we know how you feel about this.

Wait, what?

this

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Forgive me for highlighting, yet again (with your own words), your own particular worldview where all of our problems are owned by Democratic politicians and all of our solutions by Republican politicians.

Until you have the courage to admit your inherent bias, you'll remain the Sideshow Bob of FOFC political threads.

Which is, of course, simply not the case. No need for me to detail again my feelings on given issues, but I'm not Republican, mostly because I don't agree with them on many social issues.

Interestingly enough, the immigration situation was one of my big beefs with the Bush administration. I assumed that he would be one to increase the border security, but I was obviously wrong. There were a couple of half-assed attempts (virtual fence is a glaring example), but the enforcement was sorely lacking overall.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Those posts must have been lost when we switched to OS.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Those posts must have been lost when we switched to OS.

I enjoy this whole game where a political view has to be shared at the exact time of birth on FOFC or it's rendered as not ever happening. Who knew that the repository of all political opinions was FOFC? What a fantastic place!

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

No, it's really just my amusement at your continued shilling and bizarre continued affectations of objectivity that absolutely no one buys.

[miked]

Well, the question remains, what exactly is Obama supposed to do? Is he supposed to draw up legislation for this? Should he deploy 10,000 troops to the border? How come the great congresspeople and senators from Arizona, New Mexico and Texas haven't been pushing legislation? I'm drawing a blank, but he was he for amnesty in the older legislation?

Also, didn't the republicans walk out of climate change talks and refuse to talk about immigration because the democrats started working on it before climate change was done? How can Obama really get anything done with these nincompoops in congress?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

No, it's really just my amusement at your continued shilling and bizarre continued affectations of objectivity that absolutely no one buys.

Fair enough. I find it odd at how most of the people only blame one of the last two presidents when I feel both of them are to blame. It seems the mistakes aren't being used as a learning experience.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by miked

Well, the question remains, what exactly is Obama supposed to do? Is he supposed to draw up legislation for this? Should he deploy 10,000 troops to the border? How come the great congresspeople and senators from Arizona, New Mexico and Texas haven't been pushing legislation? I'm drawing a blank, but he was he for amnesty in the older legislation?

Also, didn't the republicans walk out of climate change talks and refuse to talk about immigration because the democrats started working on it before climate change was done? How can Obama really get anything done with these nincompoops in congress?

In regards to your first point, simply utilizing the laws already in place would be a great start. They're not even enforcing those laws. Why write more if you can't even handle the existing situation (which is a scenario repeated through many other issues in our society).

In regards to your second point, I'd find it laughable if anyone defended the majority or minority in Congress. Both sides have become the definition of dysfunctional.

[miked]

That was sort of my point. The only side capable of getting things done has decided it is better policy to block everything. The ones putting forth actual ideas are fairly incompetent and really have no way of getting it done. So I mean, short of sending thousands of National Guard (that we don't have thanks to pointless wars that people asking for the boost voted for), and building 10 new jails with 500 more prosectors and court personnel, how does Obama enforce laws on the books?

The more annoying part is the people who are here illegally and have babies that are considered US citizens. Are we just going to create a situation with 10,000s of orphans looking for homes? There are only so many Hollywood actors and actresses looking for minorities to adopt. And most of the suggestions (like guest worker programs, temporary visas, etc) will require new laws, and the majority in congress are choosing to punt.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by miked

That was sort of my point. The only side capable of getting things done has decided it is better policy to block everything. The ones putting forth actual ideas are fairly incompetent and really have no way of getting it done. So I mean, short of sending thousands of National Guard (that we don't have thanks to pointless wars that people asking for the boost voted for), and building 10 new jails with 500 more prosectors and court personnel, how does Obama enforce laws on the books?

The more annoying part is the people who are here illegally and have babies that are considered US citizens. Are we just going to create a situation with 10,000s of orphans looking for homes? There are only so many Hollywood actors and actresses looking for minorities to adopt. And most of the suggestions (like guest worker programs, temporary visas, etc) will require new laws, and the majority in congress are choosing to punt.

Agreed. We talked about this in the Obama thread, but it bears repeating that the leadership at all levels of the federal government right now is deplorable (executive and legislative, minority and majority).