We don't need no stinking papers

Yipee, we don't need no stinking papers in Arizona.........the hooktard judge just said so.

The court by no means disregards Arizona's interests in controlling illegal immigration and addressing the concurrent problems with crime including the trafficking of humans, drugs, guns, and money," the ruling said. "Even though Arizona's interests may be consistent with those of the federal government, it is not in the public interest for Arizona to enforce preempted laws."

This chaps my ass. Who the fuck is she to decide what is in the public interest for Arizona? Isn't that for Arizonans to decide?
Fucking government! We've got judges and the executive branch trying to write the laws and legislators trying to play judge, jury and executioner!

I guess it will at least slow down the mass exodus of illegals from Arizona to Texas.
And I was hoping to find a new cheaper lawn service.

And I was hoping to find a new cheaper lawn service. Originally Posted by boardman

Not to mention latina providers.

Like most of us Texans, I've directly hired more than a few illegals to clean my house, mow my lawns, etc.

I'm going to make a serious effort to not do this going forward. I'll keep you guys posted on how it goes.

Hiring illegals is similar in principle to handing money to panhandlers. Their work ethics could not be more dissimilar, but both illegal immigration and panhandling would slow down, maybe stop, IF we stop encouraging the behavior. Also this: hiring illegals is like occasionally feeding feral, bird-killing cats. It's not enough for either feral cats or illegal aliens to prosper, but it's enough to keep 'em hanging around while they gorge themselves on freebies, whether they be government cheese and free healthcare...or Tweeties aplenty.

It's hard to blame the aliens, or the feral cats, themselves....aliens just look at present circumstances in whatever 3rd world shithole they had the misfortune to be born in and decide to haul ass....they can do it the easy way, which just happens to be illegal, or they can do it the hard, legal way and jack with red tape and lawyers at their own expense. For years and years and years. Given that choice, I'd sneak in. The fault lies with friggin' Leviathan government that is efficient at nothing, the parasite economy of lawyers and regulators, and squirrelhead Liberals, oops...sorry, I meant Progressives...who are perfectly happy to have a dozen illegals living in an efficiency apartment....just so long as it ain't in their hood.

And a cat is a cat. Not their fault we're not allowed to shoot feral cats on sight any more..Bye bye birdy.

we're not allowed to shoot feral cats on sight any more.. Originally Posted by Don T. Lukbak

Now that's a relief!

Now that's a relief! Originally Posted by boardman

Nowadays you have to use a cast net and baseball bat, and brother, that takes practice to do right.

It's for the birdies.

Yipee, we don't need no stinking papers in Arizona.........the hooktard judge just said so. Originally Posted by dearhunter

There is a lot of unfounded euphoria from the opponents, when critically reading the opinion this is a narrow decision directed specifically at the statutory language, as opposed to the "principles" involved.

For instance: Officers in Arizona can still ask for proof of citizenship!

And when arrested, a person who cannot identify themselves as a U.S. citizen with an identifiable residence address of some substantial period of time could be considered a "flight risk" from the State and required to remain in custody until posting a substantially enhanced appearance bond.

One has a "right to bond" and "reasonable bond" given the circumstances, but one does not have the "right" to REQUIRE a bonding company to post one.

Bad facts make bad law, but bad rulings by overreaching judges provide the opportunity for making the facts worse.

Just a question:

Would one who is concerned about "discrimination" prefer a mandatory law that applies to EVERYONE ....

or one that allows discretion in the officer making the decision about the consequences of the citizen's actions or inactions.

Obviously I'm not an attorney and this is a serious question.

How often does an enacted law like this get sent through the court system prior to it's having affected anyone?

I mean even the recent SCOTUS handgun rulings in DC and Chicago were the result of the law being challenged by an affected party. How does the Federal Government get to challenge this law based strictly on it's language rather than it's effect?

Obviously I'm not an attorney and this is a serious question.

How often does an enacted law like this get sent through the court system prior to it's having affected anyone?

I mean even the recent SCOTUS handgun rulings in DC and Chicago were the result of the law being challenged by an affected party. How does the Federal Government get to challenge this law based strictly on it's language rather than it's effect? Originally Posted by boardman

Simple answer, the government is CRIMINAL.

LS

As an American Citizen I have the right to walk any where I want without ID, I can be a passenger in a car without having an ID. However if I want to drive then yes I need and ID. I would probably be wise for me to have ID while walking in case I am stopped. The Judge did not say illegals did not have to have ID in every case, but in the same case I do.

The job of federal courts is to see if there is a violation of the state / federal compact and violation of federal law. Just because she held some provisions as debatable and therefore not enforceable does not mean they are illegal. They will be appealed. If she had said they are legal, the Justice Dept would have filed the appeal; in this case it is the opposite. Same as any case that gets to the SCOTUS.

If I recall it was "Conservative" Judges in CT that first allowed Gay marriage. Because a particular ruling is not in your belief does not mean there is a massive conspiracy.

Simple in Arizona and every other State if you have brown skin you're considered Illegal until proven not.... but if you re white then you're right and American.
Anybody who thinks this isn't about race you're just kidding yourself.

As an American Citizen I have the right to walk any where I want without ID, I can be a passenger in a car without having an ID. Originally Posted by live4fun

First, there are places into which you may not be allowed without a valid, photo ID, issued by a governmental agency ... example, beyond the security check point at an airport. ticket/boarding pass + ID.

Secondly, the Judge didn't say that the Arizona LE cannot ask for an ID or papers demonstrating that the subject being detained is legally in the country.

The dumb "logic" is:
Fed: I have the exclusive right to ask the question.
State: But I want to ask the question when I have a chance.
Fed: No, It's my job to ask the question.
State: But you do not ask the question.
Fed: That is my choice, not yours.

I grew up over seas. In every country I lived in I was required to either carry a passport or an alien registration at all times. In this country I am asked all the time for ID. I'm not required to carry an ID ...but if I want to fly somewhere, drive a car, cash a check, get a senior citzen discount or go to the emergency room...I better carry one.

What's the big deal?

There is a lot of unfounded euphoria from the opponents, when critically reading the opinion this is a narrow decision directed specifically at the statutory language, as opposed to the "principles" involved.

For instance: Officers in Arizona can still ask for proof of citizenship!

And when arrested, a person who cannot identify themselves as a U.S. citizen with an identifiable residence address of some substantial period of time could be considered a "flight risk" from the State and required to remain in custody until posting a substantially enhanced appearance bond.

One has a "right to bond" and "reasonable bond" given the circumstances, but one does not have the "right" to REQUIRE a bonding company to post one.

Bad facts make bad law, but bad rulings by overreaching judges provide the opportunity for making the facts worse.

Just a question:

Would one who is concerned about "discrimination" prefer a mandatory law that applies to EVERYONE ....

or one that allows discretion in the officer making the decision about the consequences of the citizen's actions or inactions. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Why yes, I for one would prefer that! I would have no problem proving my citizenship as long as it applies to everyone. I just don't like the idea of allowing someone to use their "discretion" when it concerns my rights. I prefer the way it is handled here in TN, jailers are mandated to check citizenship and it applies to all: http://www.allbusiness.com/governmen...4549324-1.html In this way, only those that have committed crimes are affected. Let the Feds work the illegal workers and those that hire them.

Its a slippery slope when we require a portion of our citizens to be discriminated against legally while hiding behind a law such as this. And don't use that old BS that the law prohibits the use of color or ethnic origin, we all know it is already happening without this law.

Arizona is really pushing "racist" ideology lately and hiding it under the illegal immigrant issue; so soon after this law they pushed this: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may...udies-20100512 then this: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38489.html I am surprised..well sadly I am not THAT surprised, that it isn't that much press.