Arizona tried- Feds shot their's down.

Iowa tried(employment enforcement)- Feds shot down.

Wisconsin(employment enforcement)- Feds shot down.

Various States(out-of-state tuition for illegals)- Being shot down.

They are trying, but states doing what they think is right for them is not in the federal government's plans. THEY want to be the arbiter of everything regarding immigration, so they can't have states deciding how to deal with them. The President said, in an address to La Rasa a few weeks ago, that he likes the idea of "going it alone", so if any of the state laws actually get on the books it will make his plan harder to implement in time for next year's elections. Take my word for it- Amnesty + Dream Act = Voters badly needed next year.

When is the supreme court, that keeps shooting down these states attempt to do what the federal government refuses to do, going to start holding the Feds in contempt for not upholding their oath of office?

Its about humans...

This has not been seen by the Supreme Court yet 8) let's hope it does and fast.

It's good to know that some of our judges still uphold the United States Constitution and the ideals that made America great in the first place.

I have never been to Gulf Shores but if they pass this law then it will be my next vacation spot.

Yea we wouldn't want to let the states do the right thing. Especially if it is majority opinion, or best interest for our communities, cities, states, country, etc. Yup, we can't do that because it would violate the constitutional rights of those that are not citizens of our great country and could give a dam less about the same constitution that they are saying should protect them.

Whatever you do though people....whatever you do....don't ever ask someone accused of committing a crime if they belong in our country. That would be extremely rude. We don't want to offend someone, especially until the US citizen gets their missing TV back in their possession.

Sorry tea party, but unconsitutitional is unconstitutional.

juliop, nothing in your post, most of it a make-believe appeal to the emotions, has anything to do with whether the State of Alabama has the legal authority to supercede the Constitution of the United States of America.

You pretend to be "generous", but you yourself give up nothing when another person becomes a citizen. Nor does anyone else. The whole "generoisty" thing is a scam.

You say that it's important for people to form lines at movie theaters, while ignoring the fact that movie theaters have a limited number of seats, which necessitates the line (not true with immigration) and overlooking the fact that no one is forced to wait in line at a movie theater for 20, 30, or 40 years when there are plenty of seats available. If movie theaters operated the way our imigration system does, they would all go bankrupt, and deservedly so.

I believe if you read the article you'll see that the judge specifically states that she has not made a decision on constitutionality.

The bottom line is this: If the Federal government continues to fail to do the job that it claims as its own, and if they continue to impede the States interest in maintaining sovreignty over their individual territories, the States will ultimately force the Federal government out of the way.

commonsense... your posts are just as imaginary.

You have no basis in actual fact nor do you present any to support your argument. If the fed would actually enforce its immigration laws, the states wouldn't have to create their own.

It doesn't take 40, 30, 20, or even 10 years to go through the process of becoming a U.S. citizen. It's a process of 3-5 in most cases although more official posts claim must less, http://www.uscitizenship.info/ins-citizenship-process.html

I have several friends who have gone through this process and they are even more angry about illegals than those born in the US are. They made the effort, did everything right only to have these illegals spit in their faces by "jumping the line".

You should really get a clue before posting to articles about which you know nothing at all.

Sorry kiddo, but that's how the the Constitution works.

And you conveniently neglected to answer for Alabama's unconstitutional bill. Very clever.

And justread the nonsense on this board from those trying to pretend it's NOT based on racism...border fences...millions on enforcement and still they whine and moan like some school kids. We're better as a country that this right wing nuts looking for the latest scapegoat for their anger...This law too will never come to pass.

Deportations since 1997:

1997
114,432

1998
174,813

1999
183,114

2000
188,467

2001
189,026

2002
165,168

2003
211,098

2004
240,665

2005
246,431

2006
280,974

2007
319,382

2008
359,795

2009
395,165

2010
387,242

The problem is that we can't process them fast enough, we need an Express Lane! I saw a number once that on average it cost $24,000 to deport a single person. With detention and processing I guess that could be true, if so, 400,000 times $24K equals $9.6 Billion.

This whole mess is just an example of the Democratic party pandering to illegal aliens to secure the vote of the Hispanics who are US citizens. This is not in the best interest of the country and is very short sighted of the Democrats to use this sort of pandering to garner a few votes to the detriment of the country as a whole.

Maybe you should learn to read instead. He quoted legal immigrant numbers, you cited illegal numbers.

Illegal immigrant criminals should have only one right: due process. Period.

The article says the law is opposed by immigrant's rights groups. What right's do illegal immigrants have? The only right an ILLEGAL immigrant should have is the right to have their butt thrown in jail while waiting to be booted back across the border. Illegal is illegal.

HARSH YOU SAY??

1. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools, no special ballots for elections, and all government business will be conducted in our language.

2. Foreigners will NOT have the right to vote, no matter how long they are here.

3. Foreigners will NEVER be able to hold political office.

4. Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food stamps, no health care, nor any other government assistance programs.

5. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.

6. If foreigners do come and want to buy land that will be okay, BUT options will be restricted. You are not allowed to own waterfront property. That property is reserved for citizens naturally born into this country.

7. Foreigners may not protest; no demonstrations, no waving a foreign flag, no political organizing, no "bad-mouthing" our president or his policies. If you do you will be sent home.

8. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be hunted down and sent straight to jail.

Harsh, you say ?...

The above laws happen to be the immigration laws of MEXICO

Google: Immigration laws in Mexico......message.snopes

juliop, i can sympathize with you as we have the same problem here in the bahamas with hatians, and that the govt being overly indulgent of them, and like illegal immigrants in usa, they take advantage of generosities and of GUTLESS POLITICIANS WHO ARE MORE CONCERNED ABOUT GARNERING VOTES THAN THE FUTURE GENERATIONS, AND ONE LAST THING I ASK THE PERSON NAME COMMONSENSE HOW THE HELL DOES THIS COMPARE TO JIM CROW LAWS, YOU SHOULD PROBALY CHANGE YOUR NAME TO DOINK THE CLOWN

Amnesty is the answer to the immigration problem. Like it or not. People with criminal records will still get sent packing. But its the only way to settle the matter fairly.

U.S. isn't the only country being inundated with immigrants, the entire western world is getting a steady stream of people who want freedom and prosperity too. The west has been selling itself for decades, what do you expect. The U.S. isnt getting any more than anyone else. Infact you may be getting less then some other places. Immigration populations in some places in Europe, are beginning to equal those of their adopting country's domestic population. Its no where near that in the U.S. yet.

Times are changing, and as we all know, no one can change the tide of public sentiment. Most people are not bigots. They just quietly vote.

i don't know about the rest of you but i'm simply sick and tired of having to bend over for a bunch of illegals, the day will come that people finally get fed up and start taking matters into their own hands and saying screw the feds they do nothing but cater to the criminals. and for Mari2jj: i hope it will soon be that ALL states have harsh immigration laws to protect us from illegals and when that happens you will just have to move out of the country since you don't want to visit any state that tries to stop these criminals.

I guess we can thank Obama for increasing the number of deportations every year since he's been president...that Bush guy was a SLACKER.

"Scott Beason, R-Gardendale, contends the federal government isn't doing its job enforcing immigration laws." Doesn't matter. Nothing in the constitution grants states the right to act on federal prerogatives, when the feds themselves fail to do so. Besides, as stated above, deportations have recently INCREASED DRASTICALLY! The feds are at least doing a BETTER job then they were before, and there is no basis - legal or otherwise - to deny that truth.

Mexico has a minimum wage??

I think one poster hit it on the nose...eventually the states will get tired of being pushed and will move the Federal Gov. out...This country is headed for a great divide and is just a matter of time. The left and right are moving further and further apart and less willing to work together that it will eventually have to happen.

i'm simply sick and tired of having to bend over for a bunch of (expletive deleted)

Who TOLD you that you are bending over for someone else? Name one thing you have had to do to accommodate anyone?

This is all in your head, fueled by bigoted talk show hosts and others telling you that your life would be all peaches and cream if it wasn't for the nasty black and brown people. And it's all a lie.

"Fe-Fi-Fo-Fum, I see and hear an Illegal Alien

Fe-Fi-Fum-Fo, Get your Illegal Butt back to Mexico"

Deport all "Illegal Aliens" and demand that our government enforce all immigration laws equally and forcefully...NO AMNESTY and NO NIGHTMARE ACT...Illegal is illegal is illegal

Wonder if the Mexican immigration laws will apply to the kids of illegals born here? Send them all back, lock up the employers - no fines, jail time - stop all benefits to illegals, including free medical care, as we are deporting them. I realize they are people, by and large, that want a better life for themselves - great, but obey the law and come here legally or don't come.

Well, I was not born in this country, moved here about ten years ago and just became a citizen a couple of weeks ago (bmc saxman, yes, it took that long). I feel unwelcome and discriminated my most posts in here. I worked hard put myself through college and graduate school, I pay taxes (in the highest braket) and employ three people (I know it's not enough to solve the unemployment problem, but I feel I'm doing my part). But then I read all of these comments and I see that nothing I do for this country will ever wash away the fact that I'm brown and my native language is not english. What a dissapointment.

commonsense, what part of illegal do you not get? i've lived in the southwest, working/running large construction crews, i saw the cost of illegals on a daily basis, i was even threatened with lawsuits from the labor union when i sent the illegals back to the union hall. these were high paying construction jobs on industrial sites, not the low paying farm jobs you all like to talk about. the illegals lived in small apartments in large numbers and send most of what they make back to mexico. billions of american dollars a year that would do a lot to stimulate OUR economy. but bleeding heart liberals like yourself refuse to see the other side of the story.

Our masters have decided that they still need the cheap labor. Again.

Bad, bad masters!

Wow, CRT78, you sure as hell like yourself a lot, don't you? It must be thrilling getting up everyday knowing that your law degree and your advanced degree set you so far above all of us mere morons. But don't let me delay you with my idiotic drivel; the Society of Pompous A**holes meeting starts in a few minutes.

Grh- Notre Dame, IN,

If we took away their reason for being here it wouldn't cost $24000 to deport them, they would leave on their own.

If we make it a felony to employ them, and not give them welfare. If we take amnesty off the table and pass a law that says; babies born to illegal aliens in the USA do not get citizenship. If we take away their reason for coming here, many will leave on their own and others wouldn't be coming!!

People who come here through the legal channels have to go through a lot to become a citizen, and when they do, I think it's wonderful. But, when they come here illegally, and take advantage of our system, they slap the face of the people who did it right, and they slap the face of everyone in the USA. If they want to leave and then come back through legal channels, that will be fine by me. I just hope they can add to our society and not just take from it.

Americans across the political spectrum (including this Democrat and '08 Obama voter) are DEMANDING that we enforce our immigration laws (already THE MOST GENEROUS in the world). Incentivizing further lawbreaking en masse by pleding amnesty for immigration lawbreaking is UNACCEPTABLE for the majority of Americans and is simply unsustainable, as the costs (financial and otherwise) are devastating to our country and American taxpayers!

Any leader pledging amnesty for immigration lawbreaking is in jeopardy of losing re-election. AMERICANS ARE SICK OF IT! The Obama Administration needs to understand that its decision to side with ILLEGAL FOREIGN NATIONALS and their insufferable advocates over the rights of AMERICAN CITIZENS and LEGAL immigrants IS JUST PLAIN UNACCEPTABLE! Politically, the Obama Administration's pledge to grant de facto amnesty to IMMIGRATION LAWBREAKERS who selfishly attempted to insert themselves to the front of the immigration line WILL BACKFIRE WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY!

A GOVERNMENT WHICH REFUSES TO ENFORCE ITS OWN LAWS IS INTOLERABLE! The United Supreme Court has already upheld the States' right to implement E-Verify as a mandatory requirement. All other effective enforcement mechanisms must be implemented tout de suite to halt the further devastation that ILLEGAL immigration is causing!

CRT78 - It seems strange none of that advanced education you're claiming shows up in your communication skills. Most people that open conversations with name calling and personal insults work fast food. In fact - was that a hotdog stand you and your buddies financed together?

Have someone read the Newsvine COH to you. It has some interesting points to be made about treating others with respect. I'm guessing you're a rude post or two away from being ignored, if not shut down for a day or two....

Gabby,

I would think if you came here through the legal process and it took many years to complete the process, you wouldn't like that so many get away with coming here the wrong way. Sort of like cutting the line. I think if the Gov't gives the illegals amnesty, that would be an insult to all the folks like you, who came here legally and did it the right way. And, Thank You! for doing it the right way.

Crt78,

Okay you got me on that one. What we need is an amendment to the Constitution that makes; babies born to illegals cannot automatically become citizens. I know you knew what I was getting at, but thanks for busting my chops and making me get it right.

Middle class no more,

I understand citizens wanting to defend the laws of their country, that doesn't bother me, what bothers me is the general nastiness against an entire race. The terms "anchor baby" the slurs against anyone born in Mexico that I find offensive.

I should not have said what I did about people working fast food - unfair to them and I apologize to any fast food workers.

CRT78 - people get banned for racist comments as well as name-calling. Do what you want.

And yes Chuck - people with an education are all shirking violets scared to confront the other side.

Did you mean "shrinking violets"? I guess Literature or Composition aren't required for a Law degree....

Most of you guys seem to have the thinking portion of your body deposited in the excrement cavity.

You constantly want to "blame the liberals" for illegal immigration while the number of deportations under the current administration is about 2 1/2 times that of the previous administration for their first 2 years in office.

The problem is not that they are coming here in search of governmental handouts, it is that they are coming here in search of jobs. When they get jobs, they stay.

Now ask yourself this simple question? Why are we punishing illegal immigrants for doing what is best for themselves and their families instead of punishing the business owners that are KNOWINGLY hiring illegal immigrants because they will do the same $hitty job for less that you or I would?

You guys want to keep pointing the finger of guilt at the people that came to this country for a better life instead of looking at the root cause of the problem - PROFIT. Think about where you would be if your great grandparents were treated the same way. You'd still be in Europe.

Also, I must say compasion keeps me from wanting to throw a bunch of good hard-working people into a country where gangs of drug lords torch casinos to the groud killing many. I know a girl that came here illegaly because there were at least two murders in her town a day. She was afraid for her kids. She now lives with a US citizen relative and doen't work outside her house out of respect for the law she hasn't broken yet. She helps her relative as she can and is trying to adjust her status. I support her and wish her well. As you see I can't agree with you in that all illegas should be thrown out.

CRT78 (#1.46)---

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! The nonsense is that for which you advocate--- endless lawbreaking and open borders policies. I'll go with my own instincts (as a progressive Democrat) and what I have read and know to be true from others similarly politically situated.

If you think most Democrats are going to side with immigration lawbreaking--- which is causing catastrophic harm and costs to American taxpayers-- many of whom are out of work--- you've got another thing coming.

You obviously have no sense for the sentiments of the American working class (African American teen unemployment = 41%). For example, in the last 2 months in the Democratic state of Maryland, the Government signed the Maryland Dream Act legislation, but the law did not go into effect on July 1st because of an overwhelming rejection via petition drive. The petition drive was held, and there were more than DOUBLE the number of certified petition signatures needed to stop the law from going into effect. 30% of the signatories that were certified were from Democrats, many were from Independents, and some of the most enthusiastic signatories were from African Americans. The law will now be placed upon the November 2012 ballot for the voters of Maryland to decide (meanwhile the lawbreaking advocacy group Casa de Maryland has sued to try to throw out the petition--- this, of course, is only serving to infuriate Maryland voters even more that immigration lawbreakers are demanding taxpayer funded subsidies).

It is patently clear that YOU DO NOT HAVE A CLUE as to the pulse of Americans on this issue!

Why do people and the courts say that the states are creating immigration laws? They are not creating immigration laws. They are not creating laws that superceed federal laws.

They are creating a law about what it takes to register for school. They are creating a law about what it takes to rent a house. They are creating a law that says how their police will process suspected criminals. Nowhere in there did I see anything about the states saying who can immigrate to this country or not. Nowhere did I see anything about how long someone needs to be here before they can apply for citizenship.

The federal govenment can say all they want about who gets to come here, and how long they can stay, and what paperwork they need to fill out. But The states get to set the rules for renting houses, or registering for school. Since the federal government has laws about murder, does that mean that the states cannot charge someone with murder?

And as to the numbers of people coming in illegally, we cannot support it. People used to come to the US and they were assimilated into the country. Now with the huge numbers coming in from across the border, they do not need to assimilate. They just create their own communities here, basically it is a land grab.

According to Wikipedia (I know, but they get their numbers from government agencies), 175K Mexicans come to the US legally each year. Combine that with the 216K that come here illegally, and you have a very large number. These numbers are actually down from about 5 years ago when there were at least twice as many illegal immigrants from Mexico.

Mexico already has the largest legal immigration influx each year of any country.

I am not anti-immigrant. My mother is a LEGAL immigrant, my wife is a LEGAL immigrant, my aunt is a LEGAL immigrant, and several friends are LEGAL immigrants.

Crt, for someone claiming to be so intelligent try doing a little research,European countries have a higher unemployment level then we do for example Spain 20.5, Greece 14.1, Portugal 12.4 Ireland 14.8 European Union 9.5

commonsense....

It's good to know that some of our judges still uphold the United States Constitution and the ideals that made America great in the first place.

I agree.

However, it's a tragedy our Federal government won't uphold the Constitution according to its Enumerated Powers.

Article IV, Section 4 - The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

,,,shall guarantee, NOT try

Toasty, don't be surprised that if the Federal Government keeps this up, that all of these states band together, as long as it's and comes down hard on the Feds. for not getting this under control, as it is putting an even great financial strain on their already depleted finances. They do have that Constitutional right, and if they do go that route, there isn't much the Feds can do about it, other than try and fight it in court. So, how much longer do you think these states will tolerate the Federal Government not getting this under control? When the states go totally broke? Aren't they close enough to that now, without that extra drain on them?

Rico: Amazing! Mexico's immigration laws are harsh, but we're not talking about that are we? I'm pretty certain mexico is not the one with the immigration problem.

All who agree with the law: I personally hate the law and am disgusted that politicians could even think of this idea, but maybe you have good points. But you're missing the idea here, it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the states to make laws for immigration. The only way to solve it: amend the constitution, otherwise, you can't pass the law. It's simple. Yes it's very slow, but it could eventually happen.

Still, this law is just the first step to laws that can turn out to become like the Jim Crow laws, and no one wants that to happen, do they? The Republicans should really stop and think about what they're doing.

Gabby,

I am against all illegal activities in our country. As far as illegal aliens go, I'm against it being done from any country. The problem here is Mexico is close and we share a border which makes it harder and makes it to be more Mexicans that come here illegally. But I'm against illegals from any country, just as Mexico is.

What makes me so darn angry is, the Gov't passed these laws about illegal entry into our country, and then they circumvent the States from wanting to enforce them. Then they want to give amnesty, and allow all illegal children an education which includes college. What about our own citizens? If our Gov't gave away college to all legal citizens, imagine how far ahead this country would be. I know this is not an easy issue, but enough is enough, illegal is illegal! And anyone who wants to keep illegals here and help pay their way, is harboring criminals, and that is also against the law. So what happens when we don't enforce our laws......

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2010/04/28/hate-group-lawyer-drafted-arizona-anti-immigrant-law/

How unAmerican is it to support laws written by groups inspired by Nazi Germany's philosophy toward "genetics"?

Operatives of the Orwellian-named organization "FAIR" claim to have crafted the language of SB 1070 and then passed it on to Russell Pearce, who has openly campaigned arm in arm with Arizona Nazi J. T. Ready. FAIR was founded by John Tanton, who has written glowingly of Nazi Germany's ideas on "genetics", and wants to bring the same to the United States, in a form more palatable to the general public. (Perhaps treating immigrants first, and blacks later, the same ways the Jews were treated, but without the gas chambers?)

How about it, Angryelica? Is THAT what you want? Is THAT what you stand for? Because it sure sounds like it to me.

juliop -

And by the way, I have lived in Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, Puerto Rico, Italy and the United States and have three university degrees and attended four universities. So loud mouth, when are you moving to North Korea?

If this were true, and you actually had "three university degrees", then you would not be so foolish as to say this:

And it has always been noted that as people age, mature and actually experience life, they throw off the hog wash of idealistic ideals presented to them in college and learn that the conservative views of preservation of morals, fiscal responsibility and adaptation to the world

I find is ironic that you call ideas you do not agree with "idealistic", yet you fail to recognize your own idealistic ramblings. And claiming that conservatives adapt to the world is laughable. As someone who has been conservative his whole life, I can tell you with certainty that there is absolutely no "adaptation to the world" in conservative policies. (Every policy revolves around going back to the way it used to be, not adapting to a changing world.)

I can agree with some of your points, but these blatant lies and a pathetic attempt to portray yourself as something you are not only serves to completely discredit yourself.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion

1. That does not mean a dictatorship by the Republican Party with no one allowed to vote for any other party (nor do all Republicans agree with bigoted laws like the one proposed in Alabama).

2. Immigration and Invasion are two different words, with two different meanings.

Go Chuck!!! Peace, out.

Middle class no more,

I appreciate your argument, to a certain extent. Illegals don't get free college, if anything the controversy is about whether they should get in-state tuition. I don't care about that argument, personally, if someone is going to be in your country (even if illegaly) wouldn't you prefer that they get an education? Makes it less likely that they will turn into criminals (real criminals doing harm, not simple escapees from the horrors of their land). Laws should be enforced, true, but aince we share a bit in the responsibility in what's happening in Mexico, shouldn't we do something to help the victims? I think so.

Gabby,

Everybody has problems. My son lives in a neighborhood that also has murders every day. He lives there because that is what he can afford on an Air Force salary. It's their first home and they plan to better themselves in the future. We deal with the hand dealt to us. It isn't our fault that there is high crime in other countries, we have our own here. But just because we have a hard time pulling ourselves out of these situations, doesn't mean we have the right to break the law. If we do, we should be punished for it.

I have been to Mexico many times and I know out in the country, it is a dangerous place. There are many dangerous places in the world, and many countries allow the unspeakable to happen. Should the USA go help all of these places? Should we police the world and push our ways on to these countries? Should we dictate what they can do and can't do?

There is a limited amount of room, jobs and economic opportunity in the U.S.

Would somebody take that wine bottle away from julio p gallo and hand him an almanac before he soils himself?

Regarding the limited room in the US, look up population density by nation, and arable land in any almanac and see where the United States ranks. There's plenty of room. You should visiting Wyoming or Nebraska.

Regarding JOBS, there is no fixed number. The economic FACT is that immigrants CREATE jobs when they move here. Look at Gabby. Fire the immigrants and citizens will lose more jobs than they gain.

Low cost labor makes American factories more copmpetitive. Since you nativist knuckleheads have had your way, more and more jobs are being shipped overseas to Communist China. Way to go, julio.

In Texas alone, UNAUTHORIZED immigrants add $17.7 billion to the state GDP annually, and pay in a NET of $420 million per year in taxes paid minus government services received, and that inludes health care and education. That creates a lot of jobs for citizens and lowers everyone's tax burden.

Read about it here: http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/undocumented/

(Who wants to bet that the anti-immigrant crowd will vote to collapse this comment so as to surpress the truth?)

http://www.longislandwins.com/index.php/blog/post/pat_young_responds_the_arizona_law_was_written_by_arizonans_outsiders_shoul/

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/publications/when-mr-kobach-comes-to-town/the-communities-the-cost-of-nativist-legislat

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2010/04/28/hate-group-lawyer-drafted-arizona-anti-immigrant-law/

Gabby,

I would prefer that citizens get to go to college and that illegals wouldn't be here. I do not think the USA has caused these dangerous areas in Mexico, I do think that some groups have taken advantage of a border that is fairly easy to cross, and they are responsible for what is happening there. I do not think all Americans are responsible for the plight of the Mexican country. We did have a revolution in our country to turn away from oppressive rule. Maybe the highly armed gangs of Mexico should be setting their sights on that, but they won't because they like it the way it is.

Well, the comments on here are unsurprisingly racist and hateful. I'm so glad none of you are diplomats of any sort, or we would have been bombed off the face of the Earth a long time ago. What a pathetic excuse for a "civilized" country... really, you should all be seriously ashamed of yourselves.

Fun facts you all love to pretend to ignore: America has no national language . New Mexico's official language, however, is Spanish. America was founded by "illegal immigrants". Most of your ancestors were hopping boats to this country barely a century ago. Most of the lands we're kicking the immigrants out of weren't even OURS two centuries ago. Are your memories really so short lived? Or just selective?

Tell me... if it were YOUR families being targeted by the drug cartels, if you couldn't even walk down your own street without seeing a drug deal or a murder, what would you do with your family? Would you want to live in Mexico? Would you send your children to school there?

We can all try to show a little compassion and understanding, or we can continue to make enemies, and when it comes time for us to reach out for help, no one will be there for us.

We are NOT EVER going to solve this problem by deporting or banning anybody. Amnesty is the only answer at this point, along ending the so-called "War on Drugs" and working with Mexico to improve their economy, infrastructure, etc. But of course, the United States will never do anything productive to improve its tarnished image, because as the comments above so perfectly demonstrate, we'd rather just sit at home, eat McDonalds, and hate everyone else in the world.

Hey Gabby,

I can't see how the term "anchor baby" is anti-Mexican, anti-brown people, or anti-anything. It is a term that describes a fact of our current constitutional perspective--babies born here to a mother here illegally provide an anchor so that she is unlikely to be deported. Should we allow this perspective to remain in force, or should we, like all nations, be able to decide who is, who can be, and how one can be, a citizen? Just like from the country you left to legally get here. Like others, thank you for doing this legally.

What I'd like to know from you is what you think we should do to deal with this problem. In my view I think the difficulty in stemming the tide of illegals and the social programs available to them is evidence we ought to rethink federal social programs, or federally incentivized social programs. But this is an economist's view of things--if you want more of something (illegal immigration) then subsidize it, and if you want less then punish it.

Your view is that the USA is in part to blame for the violence that the Mexican government has been unable to stop and so we ought to let Mexicans come here out of a sense of guilt or a sense of compassion. Either way, let them come illegally. But what of Chinese illegals which comprise a large group as well? Is the USA to blame for China's problems too and so we should let them in? How about Guatemalans? El Salvadorans? What group, using your logic, won't claim the USA is to blame for their condition in order to leave their homeland to come here?

So what should we do to limit illegal immigration? A fence seems to me more symbolic, but symbols do matter. Would you accept ending social programs to help dissuade illegals from making the trip? How about massive fines for employers? A national ID card? How about something so simple as deporting each illegal we do come across--this would require the feds to do their job better and so may be mere fantasy. Lastly, why not end the anchor baby concept of the law as presently held? Your home nation didn't allow for anchor babies so why should the USA?

I guess my main point is that there must be something the posters who oppose New Mexico, or Alabama, or even California many years ago with 187, would like to see the USA do, or the states themselves do. Else, don't you agree, these posters (perhaps not you) want and support ILLEGAL immigration?

Blackburn didn't address whether the law is constitutional, and she could still let all or parts of the law take effect later. Instead, she said she needed more time to consider lawsuits filed by the Justice Department, private groups and individuals that claim the state is overstepping its bounds.

Wow, the DOJ sure is busy with lawsuits.

Wait a minute, the next one will be a DEFENSE CASE for Mr. Obama's uncle facing DUI and Deportation charges in Massachusetts.

I wonder how much taxpayer money the DOJ has spent on lawsuits against States ?

commonsense....

I wrote,

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,

You answered,

That does not mean a dictatorship by the Republican Party with no one allowed to vote for any other party

HUH?

I HOPE you're not concluding that a Republican form of government has any relationship to the Republican party!

A Republican form of government is what our Federal Constitutional Republic is representative of. NOT a Democracy. NOT a nobility. NOT a dictatorship. A Republic. You do know the difference between a Democracy and a Republic I hope. They are absolutely dissimilar and mutually incompatible. If you don't understand the basic concept of a Republic any defense you may attempt about our Constitution is irrelevant. You may want to read up on our Constitution and learn what it really means.

BTW. Any argument you use with reference to the SPLC might as well be assumed Martian. The SPLC is so Liberal they would consider your mother a hate group if she cast a shadow to the right of center. Nice try though.

If John Tanton is demonized by the SPLC, I looked on their website and couldn't find anything about Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. You realize she was a proponent of negative eugenics right?

Immigration and Invasion are two different words, with two different meanings.

Immigration without legal verification, in its strictest form, IS invasion. The minute someone steps on another nations sovereign soil without permission they are considered an invader. Try to cross the border in Iran or North Korea without permission and see what happens.

commonsense ............ please please shut your piehole.. What is it that you want ......... a house or apartment on every bit of land????? NO NO NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And this comes from an Independent. I'm sorry ........ but we DO NOT have space for every one. If you have ever seen a study done with mice and overcrowding, you would know that being that close with no way to have some personal they go INSANE. haven't you been watching this country? We are going NUTS with every infringement of our space and lives.

Hi precededbynone,

New Mexico has no official language. Your claim is false. What I'd prefer to go after is your logic. Using it you'd agree, would you not, that someone in, say, South Central LA, or any of a number of depressed and disproportionately violent areas has a right to simply move into someone else's home and begin living there, no? If not, why not?

There are many things we can do to help Mexicans without allowing them to shirk our laws. One would be to expand the guest worker quotas, but then you'd probably argue that we are just trying to subjugate these poor souls. We could, though, use our forces to go after cartel members--the leaders in particular--similar to how Pershing waged a fight to get Villa? This claim really is a canard though. It's as if in your mind that before there was a large drug trade moving through Mexico killing people who got in their way that all Mexicans stayed in Mexico, happily toiling away. I wonder why we passed an amnesty bill in 1986 if your way of thinking is accurate?

I don't know how ending the War on Drugs will do much in this particular issue, but I agree we should end it inside the USA. I'd rather we focus our energy on killing anyone transporting drugs INTO the USA. And I'm not sure what you mean by economic development in Mexico. I mean, don't you social justice types always complain about NAFTA and how American firms dropped south of the border to employ all those Mexicans rather than stay north of the border and employ Americans? Seems to me this was a great bit of economic development.

No, it's not economic development we need to provide Mexico to help them. We could do far better by helping them eliminate the vast corruption in Mexico that deprives the people there of an honest electoral system, an honest legal system, an honest economic system, and more. Of course then I'd await your plaintive wail about how we are dictating to another nation how they ought to govern themselves.

Of course, until that day we will have you right here telling us how we should do nothing to prohibit illegal immigration. Citizens of the world, unite.

joliap: what I got out of this comment to Newly Independent is this: "Republicans are better than you nasty, unrealistic, uncivilized democrats who are wasting there time voicing their opinions, becuase our opinions are the only logical ones."

@grh-Notre Dame, IN
Post #1.20 You don't go far enough. You should tell us what it cost for us to house, feed, cloth, school and above all pay their medical bills. Please do more reseach. I think you will find the cost to deport is not even close to cost of housing and care we American's provide for each and every one of them.

I think the U.S. Government should start billing foreign countries for the expenses incurred due to thier citizens unlawfully crossing the boarder. For example health care, education, housing, food stamps, and all others.

At least this way the native countries would make a more concerted effort to keep their native born citizens in their own country.

Juliop,

So first you claim to have attended "four universities", and then you proceed to go on a tirade about how worthless universities are. Let me quote you:

the knowledge you received in university, you will find that much is not relevant

So you claim to have "three university degrees" and attended "four universities", yet you find them to be irrelevant. Interesting. Why would you waste so much time and money on something that is not relevant to the real world?

Your contradiction proves you did not go to any university, and your apparent hatred towards higher education further supports this fact.

I grew up in Florida and we always left the doors and windows open. Today you can't. You need burglar alarms, a guard dog, shutters on the windows, and a heavy front and back door with double locks and dead bolts. Adaptation and being conservative.

How does that have anything to do with being "conservative"? You decide to live in a bad neighborhood which requires additional security, and you attribute that to a political party? That does not make any sense. Again, proving your lack of education.

Guess what, I live in one of the most conservative (party-wise) areas in the country. No need for burglar alarms, guard dogs, shutters on the windows, heavy doors... none of that, because we also have one of the lowest crime rates in the country. Of course this is a very upscale area where the cheapest homes are still $1 million plus. And guess what? Everyone in my area went to college... every single homeowner here. Apparently it was relevant to us, as evident by our success.

As for social security... please. I'll be using that for drinks and dinner bills as I travel the world on my 401k, savings, and other investments. Your pathetic little rant means nothing. I profit off the consumer spending of the poor and middle class. I make more when they spend more. If that means my taxes go up by a few points, so be it... there are enough deductions to offset that cost.

You're so lost in your blinded, short-sighted rage against "liberals" that you fail to see the big picture. You fail to see how the poor, the illegals, and the middle class contribute to the success of the rich.

juliop (sorry for the mispelling before): Why does it matter what you had to go through in Mexico? I'm sorry you had to go through all of that, but all Gabby wants is a better government and a better nation. The U.S wasn't created because we just "dealt with" Britain. She just wants to help felow latinos who are coming here illegally, and is voicing her opinion. We didn't need (or want) a whole personal flashback.

Commonsense,

Commonsense should tell you that we already have problems with our infrastructure. Problems with clean water, efficient electricity, roads, air, and oil. With your logic we can overtax an already burdened system, and I say, what good does that do?

LOL Joliop I'm not from Mexico, and if I leave I'll take the job I created with my family business. I am here out of no charity. And I am complaining about the FEW Americans who are racist, which fortunately is not most of the American people, just most of the prople who post here. I don't know and don't care about what you went through in Mexico (if it's even true). Just because other people are not as good as they should doesn't give you an excuse to be bad yourself.

Let this organization know how you feel, Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama.

I hope I'm around when the United States becomes neighbors with a country like Somalia. Can you imagine the difference between America now and then? It may not take another 100 years.

Here's and idea to help cut down the number of unaccounted for illegal immigrants and add money to the US treasury. Build welcome centers along the border, along the line like Ellis Island. As they come in, collect from them the money that they would have been paying to those that would smuggle them into the USA. Then give them a couple of choices of what to do.

A: Join the US military for 8 yrs. The amount of money that is deducted from a US soldiers pay for anything other than normal taxes, ie, GI Bill, deduct from the immigrants and put that into a fund to pay for moving their families to the US in the future. While in the military, they can start the process of becoming a US citizen like others have.

B: They join the Peace Corp.

C: They become registered workers and assigned to areas for work programs.

Think about it. If they processed say 25,000 a month at $5,000 per person, that would be $125 million a month for the US Government to have. And $5000 per person is probable less that it would cost them through a smuggler, and it would be a whole lot safer for them.

Otherwise, if the US government will not do anything to protect the citizens of the USA, then the states MUST step in to protect it's citizens. The laws that various states are trying to enact, are doing just that. It's a shame that the feds won't step in until an illegal has caused the death of a citizen either by an act such as a DUI, or an intentional murger. Then the American people are still paying for the illegal to have room adn board, medical, dental and legal council for who knows how long. Some for 25 or more yrs.

juliop--so much of what you have said is laughable, but I really got a huge chuckle out of your comment about graduate students who have "no work experience."

Ummmm, fella, what do you think those students did (and are doing) in order to finance their own educations? And, what is teaching if it isn't "work"?

You have no idea how universities work--here is how it goes. A GTA is a person with either a bachelor's degree in the field in which s/he teaches, a person with a master's degree in the field in which s/he teaches (the same degree that a "professor" in a junior college has), or a person who is ABD (all but dissertation) and has completed everything but the very last part of a PhD in the field in which s/he teaches.

Let's take the lowest level--a person with a new bachelor's degree who is now teaching freshman (who have only just completed a high school degree) the basics of the given field. If that person is in engineering, then that person has already done "work in the field" because one has to do that in order to get a bachelor's degree. I assure you that a person who has a degree in architectural engineering has designed things and built them--and tested them in the field. The same thing is true of anyone teaching business (who already has a degree which would allow him/her to go into the given field and quite likely already has workplace experience) or teaching psychology (who I assure you already has a LOT of work completed in a clinical setting--usually observing, helping, and "apprenticing") or even teaching English (such people have already completed more classes in literature and/or writing then most freshmen will ever take).

GTAs do not get to design their own curriculum unless they are at least at a master's level or ABD, and even then (trust me, I've been ABD), if the class is above a 2000-level, then the student has a "mentor" who makes sure that the student is teaching the class the way the "mentor" thinks it should be done. GTAs absolutely must follow the curriculum laid out by the faculty advisor, who monitors both the GTA and the comments of any students that the GTA has and observes them in the classroom.

While, yes, the GTA gets to express his/her opinions while teaching a class--I am unaware of any situation in the "real world" where the supervisor or trainer does not get to express his/her opinions while conducting training or seminars. However, a certain curriculum has to be followed in order for students to gain credit for the class (in academia) or for the seminar (in the workplace). The materials covered have been prechosen (GTAs don't pick out their own textbooks) and preapproved (GTAs have to follow the preset sequence of assignments) and are the product of the Faculty Senate and or department.

It is idiotic to think that people in the academy don't have "real world experience." What do you think that they do? If a person is a statistician, then the person has to do statistics that are good enough to pass muster with statisticians in the academy (not easy to do--scholars are really nasty to one another). If a person is in business, then the person has to do studies on real-world businesses (just like a real-world consultant does--and, by the way, most business professors make money as "real-world" consultants because it is much better paid), and the studies and resulting report again have to pass muster.

In any case, GTAs have to manage classes (just like trainers in the "real world" do), they have to grade papers (evaluating students just like managers in the "real world"), and they have to turn in paperwork by scheduled dates/times and in a way that is directed (just like clerical workers in the "real world"). So, yes, they have "real world" experience because there is no fantasy land called "university" in which little fairy tale creatures called "GTAs" magically appear in classrooms, express their opinions, and live on pixie dust and starlight.

A university IS a business. Departments ARE in business. They are a "real world"--and, if you looked at a little thing called reality rather than your fantasy world about academics, you'd know that those businesses now have 70% of their teaching done by part-time adjuncts, who are people with real degrees but are not being given full-time jobs, paid full-time wages, or getting benefits. So, when someone scoffs about such people not having "real" jobs, it is because they don't want to actually pay such people real money.

This is very much what happens in the "real" workplace where businesses downsize to include only a very few full time workers, workers who are badly over worked, and then either outsource the work to other countries or hire a staff of part-timers who are treated like cannon fodder. I assure you that university professors have excellent "real world" management skills because, you see, the university takes in money, provides some services but uses most of the money to advance the careers of the professors and administrators, and has "upper management" (president, dean, provost) who make a boatload of money.

Go look at a for-profit university--very, very lucrative--and then tell me that those people don't have "real world" experience.

Anyone who is teaching at a university has skills in the given field--those skills are either based on practice in the "real world" (because where do you think they get the information that they communicate in their journals--Oz?) or they have been tested in the "real world" (again--where do you think they conduct the studies that go into their journals?).

There are a few field--philosophy, perhaps--which don't have a counterpart in the "real world" other than book publication, but you would be hard put to find any such fields outside the humanities, and does anyone really give a flying flip about their humanities classes anyway (unless they are majoring in humanities)?

Get a grip, guy. Anti-intellectualism is so 20th century. Universities are businesses--and extremely lucrative ones. Yes, they are in the "real world."

Sally: (i.e. moderator) if you are only suspending CRT78 for making derogitory statements than you are doing a @!$%# job of your task. 90% of the posters on this board have made comments that were either blatently or overtly racist and yet you've let them stay. Juliop has specifically attacked Gabby (1.89), newly independent (1.93) and commonsense (1.86) as well as CRT78 (1.50) and yet you've done nothing about it.

How about you do your job completely instead of cherrypicking the folks who posting things that you obviously don't agree with?

Commonsense...

Nice to see that you tell half the story to support your figures. You said this:

In Texas alone, UNAUTHORIZED immigrants add $17.7 billion to the state GDP annually, and pay in a NET of $420 million per year in taxes paid minus government services received, and that inludes health care and education. That creates a lot of jobs for citizens and lowers everyone's tax burden.

but the story in the link actually said this:

The absence of the estimated 1.4 million undocumented immigrants in Texas in fiscal 2005 would have been a loss to our gross state product of $17.7 billion. Undocumented immigrants produced $1.58 billion in state revenues, which exceeded the $1.16 billion in state services they received. However, local governments bore the burden of $1.44 billion in uncompensated health care costs and local law enforcement costs not paid for by the state.

Seems like you forgot to subtract that aditional 1.44 billion dollars that it cost the local governments. Oops, surely an accident.

Once again it is the ACLU, Obama and the Democrats, and Mexico against U.S. taxpayers:

"The Mexican government had also appealed, arguing the law would promote racial profiling, targeting Hispanics especially."

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/08/29/alabama.immigration.law/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Democrats officially no longer work for America, they work for keeping their own power, at any cost.

pjam,

Didn't Reagan give amnesty to illegals during his term? Didn't bush try to pass another amnesty bill during his term? Yeah thought so...

Yoy may not find all those entitlement programs in Mexico, but I hear there are plenty of jobs now.

So the Federal government's argument is basically;

1 - States can't pass laws about illegal immigrants because only the Federal government can enforce laws on immigration.

2 - The Federal government has chosen not to enforce their laws on immigration.

What's wrong with the logic here?

Actually juliop my issue is with your presentation. CRT78 gave his opinion and definitely did make statements about the other posters. But no more than you did. My point is not to silence anyone as i would probably be more inclined to agree with someone who is pro-enforcement (to a point) but what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I very much object to people being allowed to be both blatantly and overtly racist in their posts and you specifically calling people names without any repercussions while someone like CRT who presented some well thought out points (albeit with the same insults) but only he was chided with banning. She either needs to do her job equally or not at all. And you can't honestly argue that you aren't making comments about other posters and therefore should be above the law? I would think since you're arguing about abiding by laws in every one of your posts that you'd understand that as much as anyone. Right???

Follow the TEA PARTYto a smaller government!

ABOLISH ALL OF IMMIGRATION LAWS!

Increase corporate tax breaks and loopholes. ELIMINATE government programs and laws that hinder business like the immigrations laws do. Eliminate corporate regulations and fees and licenses. Give INCENTIVES to outsource work.

Open the borders to FREE TRADE and CHEAP LABOR! Watch corporate profits SOAR!

If we give them MORE tax breaks they might even be kind enough to give us a few minimum wage jobs! NOT

VOTE FOR LESS GOVERNMENT AND MORE CORPORATE TAX BREAKS! SUPPORT THE TEA PARTY!

(This message was paid for byGrover Norquist and ALEC in cooperation with the tea party and other FOR PROFIT corporations)

A pure sarcasm production.

Juliop,

I am on your side. I did not even need to read the article. Just read the summary on the main page. It said that there was a ~$400 million surplus to the state by illegals (which I really doubt), but then in the next sentance said that the local governments were screwed out of $1.44 billion dollars because of illegals. So even their stats show that they cost the entire state of Texas over a billion dollars. But Commonsense decided to leave the second part out, and only list the part that supported his arguement that the illegals were good for the state and that they actually were a revenue generator.

Ummm. IIRC, the SCOTUS is the ONLY court that can rule on the immigration issue. As such, ALL of these lower court rulings are VOID JUDGMENTS...

After reading about the hate leveled at the "nativists" and others who want to send home illegal aliens, I began to feel really bad about my own beliefs.

Then I wondered how many of you are from California or other border states, and I bet many of you non-nativists are not.

Here in CA we are overrun with illegals. On the off chance that I am forced to visit any government office, or god forbid the DMV, I am overwhelmed by the number of people who do not speak English. This is a major problem, as you cannot function well in our nation without the native language. Well, except for border states.

You see here in CA, there are areas where the signs, advertisements, virtually everything is in Spanish. Right here in America. Central California.

Unemployment is rampant, and I hate to break it to you, but it is predominately Mexican based unemployment.

Please do not misunderstand, I have not an ounce of prejudice in my body - except for people who expect something for nothing, people who come here and then refuse to learn our laws or language - selfish, lazy, greedy people.

And those kind of people come in all sizes and colors.

But honestly, CA is just about broke due to illegals and unions run amok. Now our Governor is appointing 80% Democrats to state jobs where past governors were just about even up in these appointments. The Union negotiating jobs are now inhabited by lifelong union bosses. Yeah, great deal if you can get it.

CA, NY, just look at the liberal states, and what a complete mess they are. If you want millions of new immigrants, you need better examples, because the boots on the ground agree that illegal immigration is a net drain, and a disaster.

Instead, she said she needed more time to consider lawsuits filed by the Justice Department, private groups and individuals that claim the state is overstepping its bounds.

Why doesnt the DOJ and Obama ENFORCE immigration laws???

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/05/local/la-me-illegal-welfare-20100906

The payments, made to illegal immigrants for their U.S. citizen children, included $30 million in food stamps and $22 million from the CalWorks welfare program, according to county figures released Friday by Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich.

Those are "monthly" figures! States are just trying to avoid being in the same situation because the federal authorities refuse to vigorously enforce our immigration laws!

I appreciate your argument, to a certain extent. Illegals don't get free college, if anything the controversy is about whether they should get in-state tuition.

I don't see any reason not to get in state tuition if the requirements are met. And that is a 2 year residency in the state. Most illegals hold jobs where taxes are deducted so the arguement that they don't pay taxes is moot.

Nick 46,

The employers do pay their payroll taxes, but you know as well as I that we can claim many dependents and not pay much in payroll taxes. Some people don't have any withholding because of so many dependents. Since they are illegal, and don't file tax returns, what stops them from claiming many dependents whether they have them or not?

The employers do pay their payroll taxes, but you know as well as I that we can claim many dependents and not pay much in payroll taxes.

The IRS has ways of catching these illegal schemes.

You have that option. The U.S. is far from perfect. It is probably the best country going and either you adapt and enjoy the freedom the country offers you or leave.

"best country" that's an opinion. No one call their baby ugly.

Julipop = Angelica. Am I the only one that sees this. Jul's bad grammer can't hide that the wording and vernacular, as well as logic (or lack there of) is almost exactly the same.

Nick46,

An employee can fill out their W-4 anyway they want, they can even fill it out "exempt". If the IRS could figure out the illegals are deceiving them, then why can't they figure out which ones are illegal?

I will agree that they pay sales tax and the like, but I have asked before; show me where they pay enough payroll tax to make a difference? I have yet found no one who can show me proof that they actually pay their fair amount in payroll taxes. As a matter of fact, I know 3 people who had an auto accident with illegals in the past year, and not one of the illegals had insurance, and 2 didn't have a valid license. They come here illegally, and therefore criminal leaning is in their makeup. If their here illegally, why should they worry about being legal in everything else they do?

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

I'm glad my grandparents and great grandparents were able to jump on a boat and come to this country illegally. The were processed through Ellis Island and almost in the blink of an eye (comparatively) became Americans. I love this country! Given the same opportunities that earlier generations were afforded, I'm quite sure the newly huddled masses would relish the opportunity to breathe free.

I find it fascinating how much energy the federal government spends on stopping states from attempting to deal with their illegal immigrant problems. It's almost like the federal government already has an immigration reform plan in the wings and needs a clean slate to make the entire country swoon over their plan.

Taxpayers have no say.

Mexicans are entitled to all the free taxpayer provided benefits.

Taxpayers need to shut up and keep forking over the money.

I think it's because immigration is a federal function and not a state function. That just may be the reason.

chris: Who gave that job to the feds and when?

There's plenty of room in the White House for them.

Chris...Immigration enforcement is the under the authority of the federal government, but the federal government refuses to enforce the law, leaving the states and it's citizens to deal with all the resulting problems. It's a travesty of justice.

If the federal government is not doing the job they are supposed to do then it is the states' option to take that job over which Arizona and many other states are now trying to do on their own. If the Feds will not, or rufuse, to protect our country from illegal aliens then the states have to take it on and they must to protect the tax paying citizens of the US.

AZ Tumbleweed...some suggest (and I agree) that Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution makes it the responsibility of the Federal Government.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

I would suggest that the Federal Government has failed in its responsibility to protect each of them against Invasion, and therefore, the individual states should be able to enact their own laws in accordance with the 10th Amendment.

If the federal government is not doing the job they are supposed to do then it is the states' option to take that job over

Even if one accepted your imaginary "the feds refuse to do their job" nonsense as being in any way real, that baloney about "the states can take over the job frm the federal government if they want to" is not written in the Constitution.

Why is it that those caught up in what Ronald Reagan derided as "anti-immigrant hysteria" think they can just make up 'facts' and make up 'laws' at will.

Why are citizens of another country ENTITLED to free education in the US?

cmon Arizona. It wouldn't be "nice" to not give away free taxpayer services to non citizens. Especially those that are breaking the law by even being here. But....since they are good enough criminals to be here and didn't get caught along the way, they deserve something for their hard work.

Am I right commonsense?

I find it fascinating how much energy the federal government spends on stopping states from attempting to deal with their illegal immigrant problems.

Except that these states are NOT attempting to deal with immigration problems, they are merely creating NEW problems in order to pander to bigots and fools.

Nothing in the Alabama "law" prevents immigrants from coming here or staying. The "law" is merely an excuse to persecute anyone with brown skin or a funny accent. And it violates the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land.

It is those idiotic state laws and current immigration rules that are EXPENSIVE. The efforts to persecute immigrants and people who look or sound like immigrants cost hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars, and are a complete waste of taxpayer money.

We could end unauthorized immigration entirely just by passing reasonable rules (the social engineering quotas passed in 1986, which pretend to meet America's needs until the end of time, are anything but reasonable), at no cost, and considerable savings, to the taxpayer.

Any person can go to a hospital

While it is true that any person can go to a hospital, it is NOT true that they are entitled to free treatment. Nor is it true that only Mexican citizens are entitled to free treatment, as Bear Cat the bigot implied.

It is also true that some people use emergency room treatment and then DON'T pay, even though they are legally obligated to pay.

The Rand Corporation completed a study to see who was using emergency room treatment without paying, and who receives free or goverment paid for medical treatment.

They found that US citizens are far more likely to be 'deadbeats' than immigrants are, and that unauthorized immigrants are the LEAST likely group to abuse the system. Of the three groups, the unauthorized imigrants were the healthiest, the least likely to use emergency room services, and the MOST likely to pay for services received.

So, I guess I am calling you a liar if you blame unauthorized immigrants for all of the free medical care, or even for one tenth or one twentieth, or one fiftieth of the free medical care.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/56753.php

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9230/index1.html

http://news.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news-3/RAND-study-shows-little-public-money-spent-on-health-care-to-undocumented-immigrants-2448-1/

http://www.rand.org/pubs/external_publications/EP20061105.html

Why are citizens of another country ENTITLED to free education in the US?

Because we don't want a nation of illiterates. And because public education in the United States is funded by taxes paid by everyone who resides here, not just people who are citizens.

It is only in recet decades that Americans think they should have hereditary class rights to government services that other taxpayers should not be allowed to enjoy. And it is only since the turn of the century that politicians think rich people should not pay taxes.

chris: Who gave that job to the feds and when?

The Feds did before Arizona was a state. Arizona asked for statehood and it was given. Now you must play by the rules.

commonsense: there you go with not so common sense again...wasted effort here.

Bigotry is a gut thing and no amount of rational dialogue is going to change the bigots mindset. Bigotry is like religion, it's culturally engrained and doesn't have to make sense. I'll bet you anything that if you sampled it, you would find the highest proportion of nativist bigots are the same people who are the most dedicated bible thumpers, both require the same level of willfully maintained and prideful ignorance.

At least I don't live in the nightmare that is Rick Perry's Texas.

Now, was there more name-calling you'd like to do, or can the grown-ups keep talking?

haha. Hey Tootie, "I know you are but what am I?"

Schools are already paid for, no matter how many extra students suddenly attend. It costs the same per teacher, per class, no matter how many students attend his class. It doesnt cost taxpayers extra unless you can show they need extra teachers. I dont believe they do. There isnt that many illegal students.

Shut up, doo-doo head! I'm going to tell Miss Ramirez on you! (Yes, I still somehow remember my kindergarten teacher's name)

You are correct freedom...when it comes to the cost of teachers. How about the kids that are now in classrooms of 40 kids. Does it not hurt their chances to get their RIGHTFULLY DESERVED education?

Probably not. In fact Im going to go out on a limb, and say, not at all.

I'll bet you anything that if you sampled it, you would find the highest proportion of nativist bigots are the same people who are the most dedicated bible thumpers

You may well be right, but it is sad, if true, because the entirety of the Hebrew Scripture as well as the New Testament very clearly teach against the nativist nonsense.

Leviticus 19:33-34: "When an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien. The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself."

"...help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you." Leviticus 25:35

"Hear the disputes between your brothers and judge fairly, whether the case is between brother Israelites or between one of them and an alien." Deuteronomy 1:16

"And you are to love those who are aliens, for you yourselves were aliens in Egypt." Deuteronomy 10:19

"The LORD watches over the alien and sustains the fatherless and the widow, but he frustrates the ways of the wicked." Psalm 146:9

This is what the LORD says: Do what is just and right. Rescue from the hand of his oppressor the one who has been robbed. Do no wrong or violence to the alien, the fatherless or the widow, and do not shed innocent blood in this place. Jeremiah 22:3

"Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the alien or the poor." Zechariah 7:10

“Thus says the LORD of hosts: ‘Render true judgment, and show kindness and compassion toward each other. Do not oppress the widow or the orphan, the alien or the poor; do not plot evil against one another in your hearts.’" Zechariah 7:9-10

"Hear the disputes between your brothers and judge fairly, whether the case is between brother Israelites or between one of them and an alien." Deuteronomy 1:16

"And you are to love those who are aliens, for you yourselves were aliens in Egypt." Deuteronomy 10:19

"Let him live among you wherever he likes and in whatever town he chooses. Do not oppress him." Deuteronomy 23:16

"Cursed is the man who withholds justice from the alien, the fatherless or the widow." Deuteronomy 27:19

“Thus says the LORD of hosts: ‘Render true judgment, and show kindness and compassion toward each other. Do not oppress the widow or the orphan, the alien or the poor; do not plot evil against one another in your hearts.’" Zechariah 7:9-10

There you go being all rational again. :)

un-commensense: I notice you can't use the word illegal. Above you stated we didn't like immigrants. We are talking about illegal immigrants. You are not even on the same subject.

What the hell do immigrants have to do with illegal immigrants?

That's all well and good, commonsense....but not one of those Scriptural quotes is inclusive of illegal aliens or invaders. Show me a quote where it specifically states: "Honor the man who entereth by the back gate in the darkness." "Respect and welcome the stranger who tramples and destroys your property." "Find comraderie in the one who abides unlawfully in your lands."

While we are quoting Scripture, allow me to quote from the New Testament:

"Do not think I came to send peace upon earth; I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's enemies shall be they of his own houshold. He that loveth father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he that taketh not up his cross, and followeth Me, is not worthy of Me." Matt. 10:34-38

Life is tough, commonsense...., and sometimes people will suffer because of circumstances beyond their control. Illegal aliens bring their children to this country, but it's not of the country's laws their children should be angry. When of age, the children ought question the judgement of their parents for putting them in such a situation in the first place. The true test of a person's mettle and maturity is cultivating the ability to overcome hardship and strife without forfeiting the law.

Breaking the law by illegal entry into this country is an affront to any nation's sovereignty and the dignity of its citizens. Even the weak notion of just "looking for a better life" is not a plausible argument to break the laws of the nation in which you desire to occupy. After all, one cannot simply kill off a "burdensome" relative just to make life a little easier (murder = a felony). So why is illegal entry (also a felony) any different? If due process for legal immigration takes years, that is the way the chips fall. It is not our fault many come to this nation through proper channels; rather, such an influx of applicants is what places the tremendous strain on our system in the first place.

If some immigrants cannot wait that long, then maybe they ought to consider ways to reform their own country in the mean time. It is not as if there is a law against that.

....but not one of those Scriptural quotes is inclusive of illegal aliens

Those statements are inclusive of ALL aliens. There was no such thing as an "illegal" alien in Biblical days. And there is no such thing as an illegal person today. You use that word for propoaganda reasons. If you define something as "illegal", by definition no one can defend it. It is a tautology.

Adolph Hitler understood this when he made the Jews "illegal". First he made the "not German". The he made anyone "not German" to be a "non-citizen". Then he made it against the law for them to hold certain jobs, and imposed quotas on the numbers who would be allowed to hold other jobs. Next, he made it illegal for Jews to obtain certain licenses. Finally he made it illegal for them to obtain housing or education. Does all this sound familiar? It should, because it is happening now in the United States. This time the targets are unauthorized immigrants, soon to be followed by restrictions on ALL immigrants. And Latinos. And blacks. And perhaps Catholics. Then mayber Asians, and maybe Jews, and maybe atheists.

If someone has trampled your personal property, you have a complaint against that individual. You have no complaint against unauthorized immigrants in general, even if the person who "trampled" your property is an immigrant.

John Wayne Gacey was a US citizen. Should all US citizens be punished for molesting and murdering young boys?

The difference here, philosophically, is that some people believe that the Constitution applies to every human being on the planet, regardless of US citizenship, and regardless of whether or not they are in our borders. And that, incredibly, the US taxpayer is responsible for spreading baby unicorns to every human being who wants to taste the rainbow.

I believe that the Constitution only applies to legal US citizens. The founding fathers would, IMHO, be shocked that people advocate otherwise.

Commonsense is now grasping at straws in his latest comments.

Original_Thinker has pwned him with this:

"If some immigrants cannot wait that long, then maybe they ought to consider ways to reform their own country in the mean time. It is not as if there is a law against that."

And there you have it.

The reality is that it's easier to flee to the US than it is to fight to fix your own land.

That's scary! And risky!

To my mind your argument relies on the concept that the US is owned by its extant citizens at any given point in time after the establishment of the country.

I tend to see it more as an ongoing experiment owned and managed by immigrants from all the world's cultures.

You're right, there is a philosophical divide.

I disagree with many of your other points such as it being the responsibility of people to fix the ills in their own country rather than fleeing here. But another time for that. Thanks for your input.

a man's enemies shall be they of his own houshold

That's a far cry from saying "a man's enemy shall be anyone without a currently valid visa."

But if you want to quote Matthew, this one comes with a message especially for you:

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne, and all the nations will be assembled before him.

And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.

For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me,

naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.’

Then the righteous will answer him and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?’

And the king will say to them in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’

Then he will say to those on his left,

‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, a stranger and you gave me no welcome,

naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.’

Then they will answer and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?’

He will answer them, ‘Amen, I say to you,

what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’

And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

If you are serious about being a Christian, there is no question about this issue.

There is no way possible to build a Biblical case for persecuting immigrants, authorized or unauthorized.

And, no. Crossing a border without a visa is NOT the only way to become an unauthorized immigrant. About half come with a valid visa and merely overstay the departure date.

As to crossing the border without inspection, it is a civil misdemeanor, just like overstaying a visa, not a criminal felony.

And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?

And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?

And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.

Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?

And he said, He that shewed mercy on him.

Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise. Luke 10:25-37

Sounds like someone is misconstruing Matthew's words concerning charity with being an enabler!

Commonsense, I like the fact you are one willing to debate, and it makes me feel as though I am not wasting time replying to you.

But let's get to the facts about what immigration as a whole is interconnected with and how it differs from the biblical period.

First off, immigration affects a number of public programs which include financial aid, education, medical attention, housing, voting, taxes, and so on. Everything is recorded and documented for a purpose: to make sure that those who pay into the system as a whole can benefit by that orderliness in time of need. When you inject, we'll use your term, "unauthorized immigrants" into the mix, this throws all the record books and accounting into turmoil. Money and aid is given, but there is no way to keep track of who received it, how or when that expense will be recovered, and ultimately, that debt falls on the backs of those who have money.

So you see, as inadvertant as it may be, that simple little technicality of being legal or illegal, impacts YOU, it impacts ME, it impacts the COUNTRY, and it impacts the ECONOMY as a WHOLE. An economy is turned completely upside down when the poor and needy receiving aid far outweigh the well off and productive members of society paying into that fund.

Like it or not, everything runs on money. That money has to come from somewhere. There is so much crap right now, we can't even print more to cover the costs. Why? Because printing money dilutes the value of the currency. You print more money, it loses purchasing power in the local and global market.

Secondly, there is a matter of identity fraud. Forged documents and smuggling is big business at the border. Again, how many people's credit and good name are ruined by some unscrupulous alien paying thousands to affix a name? When that happens, how much money is lost due to inability to invest, legal fees and ulitmately, poor credit? You see, it goes far beyond the humanity of what you are trying to imply.

From the sound of your posts, you are quite conflicted regarding laws or borders of any sort. Why support a governing body, then? Do you really believe our nation ought just dissolve and have no borders at all? Or do you find it easy to just blame all the world's problems on the United States?

This is not Third Reich economics, my friend. We are not excluding anyone based on religion or race. It's about playing according to the rules like everybody else, and making sure those who won't suffer just consequences. Before you bring disparities into this conversation, it's a matter of percentages. Which race/origin represents the majority of illegal aliens? Secondly, look at the photo in MSNBC's article. Who is making this a race issue? Apparently it is the media and those political figures who have vested interest in future voting material.

He still can't use the word illegal. That would mean all of what he is saying is BS.

Since the general scope of this thread is the Constitution, I have to disagree with commonsense that illegal aliens are entitled to free public education. The Constitution not only does not dictate this provision for illegals, it also does not mandate public education for legal citizens.

This is an extremely expensive burden on states. It not only requires the never-ending addition of portable classrooms (no districts, in California at any rate, can afford permanent buildings) over pre-existing playgrounds, it requires more teachers, more custodians, more kitchen workers, more secretaries, more administrators, more counselors, etc. Before you think this is a good way to counteract unemployment, the actual fact is that districts simply cannot afford to make hire the additional staff. Class sizes continue to grow, and schools will share principals. There is NO money to accommodate this growth. Our local district charges $280 for the privilege of riding a school bus - even when they're overcrowded (my kid sometimes had to sit on his backback in the aisle) and simply not enough of them (my kid had to walk a mile and a half from his bus stop, a large chunk of which was a busy, hilly street that lacked sidewalk). Unless your household's income is below the poverty level. In which case those kids ride free...guess the demographics of the majority of those households. This amounts to a transportation tax for the rest of the households.

These kids (also legal citizens, since children of illegal aliens are still granted citizenship - this is a much larger number) also receive free breakfast and lunch. And English-as-a-second-language tutoring. And free daycare. And free healthcare. And free dental care.

I work for the local district. Very, very part-time. An enormous impact to the economy in California is the fact that it is also almost impossible to get hired by a school district in a role other than teacher (think counselor, dispatch, substitute coordinator for district custodians, facilities and special-events coordinator, secretary, receptionist, etc.) unless one is certified bilingual. It goes without saying that this means English-Spanish bilingual. Not English-Cantonese, or English-Korean, or English-Vietnamese, Laotian, Gugarati, etc. Those who ARE certified bilingual are usually immigrants themselves.

I have no problem with legal immigrants obtaining gainful employment. My mother is an immigrant. It took years for her to jump through all of the legal loopholes. And she had to be gainfully employed in order to do so! In her case she had to study to become re-certified as an R.N. (twice, actually - in 2 different states). But this is happening on such a huge scale in California that the result is that many of the last "good" jobs are simply unattainable to non-bilingual citizens. I couldn't even apply as a receptionist at a veterinarian clinic without being bilingual! The same is true for city, county and state jobs.

It is simply bewildering that the feds refuse to enforce immigration law, yet the impact of this negligence is driving states into bankruptcy, because they remain required by law to provide services to the people who live in them.

Hi commonsense,

You don't make your position specific on this question, though you imply throughout your posts what I think is your position. Do you favor an open border for the USA so that anyone, at anytime, and for any reason, can come to the USA?

Pete in Montana, please feel free to leave the US and fix whatever country your ancestors fled.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the United States of America. Period.

You might think it applies only to you or to people you prefer, but that is your own silly fantasy, and has nothing to do with the law itself.

As for the merits of waiting for 30, 40, or 150 years; who benefits from that? Certainly not the United States.

It's funny how Alabama is I believe one of the lowest income per capita states in the United States. How can that state or any state for that matter afford to house, feed, cloth, school and pay medical bills for someone that is breaking the law. Last time I heard people of those standards of living where in jail. When are we going to stop rewarding criminals? The only difference I see is one is able to roam the streets and continue his/her theft while the other is safely behind bars. Those of you that think they are not criminals should go to Mexico and see how long you can stay there on Mexico's dime.

"As for the merits of waiting for 30, 40, or 150 years; who benefits from that? Certainly not the United States." -- commonsense

What exactly is your point? It is not our fault processing takes time, and when you multiply such time consumed by hundreds of thousands of applicants, well, you get the idea.

But, the United States has yet to benefit from the Reagan amnesty of '86. It basically enacted what present administrations claim will be "diligently" enforced through their "immigration reform acts". 25 years later, the problem has increased 400% at minimum.

Now you have a hard fact demonstrating that capitulation does not work. What else would you suggest?

Let this organization know how you feel, Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama.

Hi commonsense,

You don't make your position specific on this question, though you imply throughout your posts what I think is your position. Do you favor an open border for the USA so that anyone, at anytime, and for any reason, can come to the USA?

@Freedom4Everyone,

Schools are paid for? Who pays for lunches? Who pays for gym clothes or cloths period? Who pays for the extra busses needed to transport extra pupils? Who pays when a child has to share his books? Who pays when the teacher has to wait while an interpreter or if none is available the slowing down so children of lesser English can understand? Who pays to have teachers go to school to learn the basics of Spanish? Schools are paid for by whom? Who pays to make the school bigger so we can accommodate all the extra students? How many kids can one school accommodate if the taxes are not there to even run the school? In Ohio we have brand new schools setting empty because of that very reason. To many kids not enough tax income. Who should pay or should we all work in our schools for free?

Allrighty then.

"Pete in Montana, please feel free to leave the US and fix whatever country your ancestors fled."

Norway and Sweden? They look pretty good right now, don't they? Great GDP, GNP, education, need I go on? Czechoslovakia is on the mend. Kinda looks like they don't need my help. In fact, it looks like they've done just fine in the last 250 years, whereas we.. have slid... into... hmm...

But, this is now, and that was then. When they came here, they came with nothing, and get this - and you might want to brush up on your history here:

There were no social safety nets, no handouts, no subsidized health care, no welfare, none of it.

They came here for opportunity, a better life, and they worked to achieve it for themselves, and for me over 4 generations. Without having a hand out for handouts. They didn't fly their flag higher than that of the US. They aspired to be US citizens.

So, what's different today? We have Mexicans coming to the US for the same basic reasons, right? They want better lives? Do they aspire to be US citizens? Something about the US must be preferable to Mexico, right?

We have borders and laws. We have a Constitution. It seems you claim to value the latter, but have no respect for the former. It also seems that you have no respect for legal citizenship, that you advocate open borders, and the continued 'reward' to those who break our laws and are here illegally.

Yes, our immigration system is broken. But that's not justification for continued disregard for our laws as a NATION.

And convincing the vast majority of the US population that it's somehow fair to tax them to support those here illegally is going to be a tough, tough sell as our social systems degrade and we slide into insolvency in the next few decades.

Confused, based on Freedoms response as to 40 kids doesn't make a difference in the classroom compared to 25 or 30, he obviously has no clue. Don't bother trying to rationalize.

I find it fascinating how much energy the federal government spends on stopping states from attempting to deal with their illegal immigrant problems. It's almost like the federal government

Your facinantion would end with a little education. No one is attempting to stop the states from dealing with illegal immigration. So let's not be so narrow minded. They are attempting to protect the Contitutional rights of every person citizen or not and keep separate federal and state rights.

The Constitution not only does not dictate this provision for illegals, it also does not mandate public education for legal citizens.

No it doesn't dictate for citizens either. The Constitution does not mention illegals. It does say people in this country and does not separate by legal and illegal. Federal and state laws do mandate public education.

Interesting comment about the Constitutional rights of citizens.

Which Constitutional rights is Alabama trying to protect...The U.S. Constitution or the Alabama Constitution of 1901?

I would suggest that Alabama has no jurisdiction in federal matters and having lived here for 36 years, I can unequivocally state the Alabama State Constitution of 1901 is the most backward in the nation. Even today it's replete with Jim Crow era laws and phraseology.

I particularly enjoy Robert E. Lee's Birthday celebrated in conjunction with Martin Luther King's Birthday; Confederate Memorial Day on April 23, 2011 and Jefferson Davis's Birthday celebrated on the first Monday of June.

I probably will regret posting this but here's the mindset of Alabama State Government.

Please read the first link first...I guess public opinion does matter:

http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2011/08/alabama_governor_robert_bentle_2.html

http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2011/08/alabama_governors_office_does.html

The illegas aren't counted, but their anchor babies are when they show up in schools for their free education, in hospitals for their free medical care, and the welfare office for their free cash and food stamps.

Our government requires taxpayers to cover these costs and is surrendering America to the Mexican invaders.

Well if you did a little research...most hispanics are considered white.

I completely agree that these babies are citizens and are entitled to citizen benefits. However, their criminal parents are not and they should be deported. It is up to the parents whether they take their kids with them or figure out other means of parental rights for their kids.

I have numerous friends that are here from other areas of the world. They had kids here in the states and in turn get the entitled benefits. Even they laugh at the ignorance of the US system.

"You can't do this...but if you do..and you don't get caught..well ok I guess we should let it go. You are hereby entitled to the same rights as those other families that have to go through all the loopholes and expenses for following the law" Yup that sounds about fair.

drip is prepared to accept that a loophole in our Constitution is acceptable and that kids born to illegals actually should be considered U.S. citizens.

Some of us refuse to accept that.

Despite being in an almost all-white town, the school's enrollment is about 65 percent Hispanic.

Do not know anything about the Crossville area; however, Alabama is full of private academies/schools that cropped up after integration was made law. Consequently, if you check some of the larger towns in Alabama, you'll find a lot of whites do not send their kids to public school--instead choosing these academies where 'education' takes second place to football.

dirp101...It's called abusing the 14th Amendment. Here's how bad it is:

Birth tourism in US on the rise for Turkish parents

With more Turkish parents wanting their child to be born in the US, tourism companies are starting to offer ‘birth tourism’ packages to US cities. Many women say giving birth in the US has benefits including cheaper education and fewer visa worries. Some Americans, however, want to restrict the practice, citing fears of illegal migration.

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=birth-tourism-to-the-usa-explodes-2010-03-12

Mexicans walk across the border and have their babies at YOUR expense everyday taking advantage of the 14th.

Is that OK with you?

drip is prepared to accept that a loophole in our Constitution is acceptable and that kids born to illegals actually should be considered U.S. citizens.

It's not a loophole. It is specifically stated.

wow to everyones post except dirp101

face palm

ugh this is disgusting to watch, didn't anyone think for a minute that the only reason 'Mexicans" have babies here is to give their child a better life? Do we hate Mexicans so much that we would take away a baby's citizenship not for the law but for his blood? because his parents are Mexican? It's despicable and RACIST, that's right, the R word! It's racist to take away an American's citizenship because his parents are Mexican, it's not abusing any amendment, its called trying to escape the gutter, and find a future for your child (sorry if im offending anyone that thinks Mexico is a great place to live), maybe if Legal Immigration wasn't so ridiculously difficult, then maybe so many people wouldn't come here illegally to take horrible jobs to raise a family... I am against illegal immigration, but this is not American, because those 'anchor babies' will grow up to pay taxes like the rest of us, if they have to get food stamps as Bearcat said, they'll do it because they can't afford food, not because they're "dirty Mexicans taking advantage of us" as he portrays them to be. I also think that arresting anyone who helps illegals is demeaning, as an illegal young woman who risked her life getting here is a MAID who doesn't apply for any false benefits (there aren't benefits for illegals, sorry) and doesn't take anyone's job (Unemployed americans would never stoop down to farming, kitchen duty, or cleaning). If i'm a criminal because of that, then this can't be AMERICA

And our country becomes more like that cess pool that they came from. Mexicans have a country, so go home and march for your rights in that country.

someredemption, if your here illegally as you state, i don't care what job you do, or what benefits you didn't apply for, you are a criminal and should go back to wherever you came from. in other words get the hell out....YOUR NOT WELCOME

The vast majority are not bigots, and they have lives and dont hang out on the vine spewing their hate like all these trolls. (Most are here everyday) The vast majority dont hate mexicans, or anyone for that matter. People who live their life on hate, deserve our pity. But should also be ignored, they are a minority and nothing they spew will ever come to pass.

Chris, the real cess pool exists between your ears.

Some of you bgots need to read the Constitution, and what it says about things like race, creed and national origin. And if you still object to a nation that REJECTS bigotry,

go live somewhere else.

Because THIS nation was founded on the principle that ALL men (and women) should be free.

Your post is 100% dead on Some Redemption! I have said all along that it's the laws that need to be changed, not stepping on the constitution to enact state laws that target certain groups of people. My wife is a latino and I can guarentee you that if she was arrested and held in jail pending certification of her legal residency (which she holds), I would pursue justice with every dime I have!! I see some reasonable posts on here supporting enforcement of the law, and of course that is something we all should expect in a law-abiding society. However, I firmly believe that most of these state laws are a result of fear of those who might look or speak differently than us. This is not my idea of what our nation should look like!

@common sense, you seem to be accusing everyone who disagrees
with you as “bigot”.

This is more hateful and offensive than many of their
comments.

I support LEGAL immigration, easier to get work permits (so that we can screen out real criminals), have many Hispanic friends and co-workers, have been in serious relationship with Hispanic partner; but I definitely oppose ILLEAGAL immigration, and would like to see FEDs do their job, or allow the states to do it for them.

Does this make me a “bigot” too? Because I think the legal rules for immigration should be followed?

Does anyone remember that we are all immigrants from other countries? Do you think the Native Americans had a beef with our ancestors taking over their land? Reminds me of a joke I saw around election time.

A bunch of old white guys (Congress) sitting around in a room trying to decide how to get rid of all the immigrants...then the Native American Leader walks in and says "great idea...let's start with all of you"!

I agree with the judge, one has to see if this is constitutional or not, the constitution of the United States of American covers everyone who is within her borders, regardless. You can not demand your constitutional rights as an American and then demand that they do not apply to others. That in itself is unconstitutional :).

@Nick: A "loophole" is the exploitation of an unclear rule or law in order to achieve an end result which is contrary to the law's intent. Thus, anchor baby citizenship is a loophole in the 14th Amendment. It allows illegals to gain a foothold here through a citizenship grant that probably never entered the framers' wildest imaginations - let alone intent.

States do not only have the right, but have the duty to protect their citizens and public finances from abuse, or foreign intervention, regardless of whether or not the federal government is fulfilling it's job duties.

Let this organization know how you feel, Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama.

Too many people accept that the Constitution provides that all babies born in the USA are citizens. This is not the Constitution, but is an evolution of USSC rulings, and, like Plessy for instance, is likely wrong. Opinions that had to do with the status of a man born here to Chinese parents when those parents were lawful immigrants, or opinions that had to do with ensuring citizenship rights to Indians given their nation-state status, aren't entirely parallel to the concept of someone entering illegally for the purpose of having a baby here so it can be a citizen.

No nation on earth anyone has identified has such an insane idea about who can be a citizen. The Constitution, like all laws, cannot be used as part of a ruse in order to defeat those laws. So saying that someone violated the law in order to take advantage of it isn't a valid argument. We should use statutes to vitiate the USSC ruling on this issue that is presently the basis for so many to argue our Constitution supports and confers citizenship rights upon birth to all, regardless of the legal jurisdiction the mother is under. And if the USSC rejects the statutory remedy then we should amend the constitution so that reason and logic are clear.

That said, would it be wise to deport someone who has lived his entire life here even if he arrived already born? It depends. If young enough then yes, but if we've failed to do our job and defend our borders and someone made it enough years so that they know only the USA as their homeland, then deportation would be harsh. But not for their parents. If we want a borderless America then, in time, we want no America. Every nation on earth now and in the past has survived in part based on how well IT decided its future. NO nation that allowed anyone to come for any reason has survived.

media is crazy: I am actually not illegal, but a friend our family, our maid IS illegal, I am a legal immigrant and am very glad to see some people agree with me, we should do our best to stop illegal immigration but not by passing laws that demean them, thank you all for your attention

Once again it is the ACLU, Obama and the Democrats, and Mexico against U.S. taxpayers:

"The Mexican government had also appealed, arguing the law would promote racial profiling, targeting Hispanics especially."

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/08/29/alabama.immigration.law/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Democrats officially no longer work for America, they work for keeping their own power, at any cost.

someredemption: where do i start? you say we should do our best to stop illegal immigration but yet you hire a maid that is in this country illegally, that makes you a hypocrite by any standard. it was you that stated you were illegal yourself, now you say you are here legally, so which is it? apparently you can't get your story straight.

@common sense, you seem to be accusing everyone who disagrees
with you as “bigot”.

I don't see that what I see is bigots that want to change the Constitution to fit their bigoted thinking.

@Nick: A "loophole" is the exploitation of an unclear rule or law in order to achieve an end result which is contrary to the law's intent. Thus, anchor baby citizenship is a loophole in the 14th

I undersatnsd what a loophole is. And the Constitution is clear that an "anchor baby" a citizen.

The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution was passed by Congress on June 13, 1866 during Reconstruction. Along with the 13th amendment and the 15th amendment, it is one of the three Reconstruction amendments. Section 2 of the 14th amendment modified Aritcle I, section 2 of the US Constitution. It has had far reaching effects on the relationship between states and the federal government. Learn more with this 14th amendment summary.

Text of the 14th Amendment

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Stated clearly no loopholes. Unless of course you choose to read into it.

No, Nick. The Constitution is NOT "clear" that an anchor-baby is a citizen. In fact, it doesn't address the issue at all. Not the anchor babies of illegals, anyway. That's what makes this a loophole.

You think you're pretty smart, but ironically you're blinded by your own sense of self-righteousness. It's you and your ilk who are "reading into it." Not stated clearly at all that persons born to parents who are here ILLEGALLY are citizens. You can argue that the framers didn't intend to distinguish, but I can just as validly argue that they didn't even dream of such a circumstance.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States

I'm sorry but I am not sure that it can be clearer than this.

You can argue that the framers didn't intend to distinguish, but I can just as validly argue that they didn't even dream of such a circumstance.

Dream of such a circumstance? Think about it. Most of the framers of the Constitution were "anchor babies". Before they were US citizens they were British citizens. So it was an all inclusive CYA.

I still disagree, which I'm sure you'll find just unbelievable, but nonetheless there it is. The framers most likely did not consider themselves illegal aliens.

Think of it this way. Three 10-year old boys build a tree-house in the woods. That's their club. They're obviously members because they started the whole thing. They decide that their three little brothers will be members by default because, well, that just makes sense; eventually they'll be too old to play in a tree house, but they don't want to just abandon it. And, why leave their little brothers to start all over when there's a perfectly nice tree house that will be waiting for them?

The boys also agree that other kids may be able to become members of the club by going through certain specific initiation procedures, etc. and that once those requirements are met the little brothers of those boys will also be considered members of the club.

But, one weekend a 12-year old boy from another neighborhood finds the tree-house and occupies it without the consent (or even knowledge) of the original three boys. Surely you're not even going to attempt to argue that the 12-year old is a member of the club. Is the 12-year old's little brother a member of the original club?

No. There is no way that you'll ever convince me otherwise. Sorry. You can try, but I don't think it's possible.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Nick you conveniently forget the very next part of that sentence, when they are here illegally they are not subject to this country but to their own whether that be Mexico or frigging Iran, these amendments were designed specifically for the slave population that they were trying to integrate as citizens after the civil war. they had NO intentions where illegals were concerned.

Nick you conveniently forget the very next part of that sentence, when they are here illegally they are not subject to this country but to their own whether that be Mexico or frigging Iran, these amendments were designed specifically for the slave population that they were trying to integrate as citizens after the civil war. they had NO intentions where illegals were concerned.

CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES

The citizenship provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment may be seen as a repudiation of one of the more politically divisive cases of the nineteenth century. Under common law, free persons born within a State or nation were citizens thereof. In the Dred Scott Case, 1 however, Chief Justice Taney, writing for the Court, ruled that this rule did not apply to freed slaves. The Court held that United States citizenship was enjoyed by only two classes of individuals: (1) white persons born in the United States as descendants of ‘‘persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognized as citizens in the several States and [who] became also citizens of this new political body,’’ the United States of America, and (2) those who, having been ‘‘born outside the dominions of the United States,’’ had migrated thereto and been naturalized therein. Freed slaves fell into neither of these categories.

The Court further held that, although a State could confer state citizenship upon whomever it chose, it could not make the recipient of such status a citizen of the United States. Thus, the ‘‘Negro,’’ as an enslaved race, was ineligible to attain United States citizenship, either from a State or by virtue of birth in the United States. Even a free man descended from a Negro residing as a free man in one of the States at the date of ratification of the Constitution was held ineligible for citizenship. Congress subsequently repudiated this concept of citizenship, first in section 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and then in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In doing so, Congress set aside the Dred Scott holding, and restored the traditional precepts of citizenship by birth.

Based on the first sentence of section 1, the Court has held that a child born in the United States of Chinese parents who were ineligible to be naturalized themselves is nevertheless a citizen of the United States entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizenship. The requirement that a person be ‘‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’’ however, excludes its application to children born of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state, children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, or children of members of Indian tribes subject to tribal laws. In addition, the citizenship of children born on vessels in United States territorial waters or on the high seas has generally been held by the lower courts to be determined by the citizenship of the parents. Citizens of the United States within the meaning of this Amendment must be natural and not artificial persons; a corporate body is not a citizen of the United States.

I still disagree, which I'm sure you'll find just unbelievable, but nonetheless there it is. The framers most likely did not consider themselves illegal aliens.

Probably not but it doesn't change the fact that they were. They came to a land uninvited and proceeded to rape and pillage Indian lands. Do you believe they were welcome? Of course not but we justify that as "that was then and this is now". So believe what goes around comes around.

Congress subsequently repudiated this concept of citizenship, first in section 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and then in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In doing so, Congress set aside the Dred Scott holding, and restored the traditional precepts of citizenship by birth.

And, now that we realize that this is subject to exploitation, the same sort of action can be taken now to ensure that the anchor baby loophole is closed.

@Nick: Ah. So you're a native American. I didn't realize that. Or, are you just one of those people who - despite the absolute impracticality of it - suggest that we should all just move back to where our ancestors came from? Which, by the way, would obviouslly include all illegals going back to where they came from. . .

So, Nick, you really can't provide any sound legal basis for your position, can you?

First you say that the framers of the Constitution were just making sure they covered their own positions as either uninvited conquerers or the anchor babies of British citizens:

Most of the framers of the Constitution were "anchor babies". Before they were US citizens they were British citizens. So it was an all inclusive CYA.

And, then you turn around and argue that, well, we're just getting our come-uppance for taking this land from the native - ah, hell - from the Indians. (I'm getting tired of all the PC crap and I'm not going to list every tribe. . . )

They came to a land uninvited and proceeded to rape and pillage Indian lands. Do you believe they were welcome? Of course not but we justify that as "that was then and this is now". So believe what goes around comes around.

The bottom line is that the Indians didn't have any concept of national boundaries. They didn't occupy enough of this land mass to really need to worry about it. While I tend to admire them for their approach, that's simply not a practical approach in today's fully-populated if not over-populated world where we occupy and use nearly every acre of the entire country.

The framers understood that concept perfectly well having come from Europe. And you'll not convince me that they intended to reward trespassers on what they then considered their property by bestowing citizenship on their children.

And, now that we realize that this is subject to exploitation, the same sort of action can be taken now to ensure that the anchor baby loophole is closed.

Exactly. That's why there is an Amendment process.

The bottom line is that the Indians didn't have any concept of national boundaries.

Perhaps not in the European sense, but the tribes knew which territory they claimed. Otherwise, why would treaties be negotiated after the tribes started to fight off the interlopers who were trying to colonize the land.

Excellent point - and one I totally overlooked. Obviously various tribes had some territorial claims and thus occasionally there were inter-tribal fights. Just like the ones many States are now fighting with interlopers from various countries but primarily Mexico.

Yet, that point alone sort of takes a lot of wind out of the argument that Europeans just came in with guns blazing and "stole" the land. (Whether the treaties were properly honored is another question entirely and beyond the scope of this issue.) Treaties were negotiated. Well, the treaties that established the U.S.-Mexican border were negotiated and established a long time ago. Now it's time to enforce them.

Just like the ones many States are now fighting with interlopers from various countries but primarily Mexico.

You seem to forget that the entire West was owned by Mexico at one time. The interlopers were the expansionists. And the discovery of gold just fuel that. The USA has a quite a history of thievery for personal economic gain.

Yet, that point alone sort of takes a lot of wind out of the argument that Europeans just came in with guns blazing and "stole" the land.

I would say that the colonials came in with guns blazing and once they started to take casualties, the govenment would come in to try and negotiate a treaty or have a war then negotiate a treaty.

(Whether the treaties were properly honored is another question entirely and beyond the scope of this issue.)

Haven't the courts already addressed that issue?

Treaties were negotiated. Well, the treaties that established the U.S.-Mexican border were negotiated and established a long time ago. Now it's time to enforce them.

OK. Hopefully the US will fulfill ALL of its treaty obligations.

"Hanging Judges",,,,, interesting.

We need some "Hanging judges"

Like Osama bin Laden, you worship Death, but we prefer a culture of Life.

@commonsense

The country is changing...get used to it.

The country is changing...get used to it.

I'm okay with it. I don't get all clammy when I see someone with darker skin than mine or hear words pronunced slighlty differently.

You guys that think the US should be a new haven for Third Reich ideas will eventually lose out. It's merely a question of how much death and destruction you cause before you go away.

The historical imperative is toward democracy and equality. All this nativist nonsense about hereditary rights is a throwback to medieval days. From an economic standpoint, it's a losing proposition, and always has been.

NO commonsense, Tell that to the 40million unborn babies aborted since Roe v Wade. Tell them about your "culture of life".

Oh and as the country turns brown...notice how it's falling apart?

And not all of those people you that you so scornfully refer to are not all Mexicans or even Hispanic. Believe it or not many thousands are of European stock and origin. Of course bigots see no problem with those people being here, do they?

Chris Gilliard

What part of ......."ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS"........ dont you understand?

Does not matter where they are from. If France was south of the border,

what do you think the language of majority......."ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS" would be? Certainly not Spanish.

Chris Gilliard, please state the source of the thousands are of European stock, etc. From which European countries? Even if it were one thousand we have approx 12 million illegal Mexicans or more here and they are breaking our laws.

Yeah, and Europe has been doing that for quite a few years. Look where it's gotten them!

I do not care if they are Asian, mexican, cuban, Haitan, English or irish if they are here illegally, claimin benefits, not paying taxes, stealing social security numbers then they should be fined for every penny we can squeeze out of them and deported along with any child they have while here.

Some of us CHRIS had to spend at least 6 years waiting and completing paper work and going to the naturalization office week in week out'

These bastards SPIT basically in our face and all the millions who have become Naturalized Americans Citizens.

They need to be deported

Big Al: what about their children, who were born here, do you deport those US Citizens too ?

There are 12 million illegal immigrants, ICE and the courts can handle deportation proceedings on about, maybe 10% of that, assuming they are caught. If you have a choice of working to deport someone who is doing other crimes (I know the illegal immigration is a crime) or someone whose only crimes are associated with their immigration status, who would you go after ? Do you work to deport the robbers/thieve/drug gangsters or the migrant worker ?

Chris wake up and smell the crap you're shovelin. Your citizenship should be revoked for speaking in moron

Some of us CHRIS had to spend at least 6 years waiting and completing paper work and going to the naturalization office week in week out'

So? Times change. I grew up poor my kids didn't should they just because I did? Just because you shovel crap doesn't mean everyone should too.

These bastards SPIT basically in our face

Which is not as bad as what you and the rest of the bigots are doing to the Constitution.

Why should I be forced to spend my hard earned tax dollars satisfying the blood lust of bigots like Bear Cat, when the people he wants to persecute make America a better place, and when America wuld be better off without bigots like Bear Cat?

Forced to choose between the Constitution and our current immigration rules, I choose the Consitution. It's time to get rid of an unworkable, counterproductive immigration system that everybody hates, and that never was good in the first place.

criminal babies?

You are one sick pervert.

Yes, they can get free schooling, health care and anything else they need, yet American citizens who can't afford health care get sent to collection agencies by the hospitals, even after you send it all the paperwork proving you can't afford to pay them.

No...anchor babies...which Canada made illegal years ago.....why?....because it was killing them financially. It's funny how this country fails to learn from others mistakes.

Bill, oh Bill:

Keep repeating the words "illegal aliens". Scream them all you want. It's still not going to make the immigrants go away.

You, of course, are free to leave.

Funny, but every time a U.S. citizen appears to do something "illegal" it is OK to check their I.D., background, record, birthplace, SSN, address, and correct name. HOWEVER, when it is an "illegal" alien it is some kind of profiling or racist move. Furthermore, people from Mexico seem to benefit from the pass more than anyone else. Why? Rich people need slaves. Also, I bet the delay in ruling is to see how the bribes are all going to work out. Mark my words....

You know commonsense your a (cuss word)

I don't think I have ever been called a Bigot.

I checked the meaning and none of those pertain to me. I don't have any problems with any particular race or discriminate anybody in fact I married a Mexican.

I earned my Citizenship through hard work and waiting for 6 years.....

I had nothing when I came to this Country but dreams of a better life without Socialism and Communism.

I had very little when I came here maybe 750 bucks no language skills 8( and the shirt on my back.

I did it Legally I love this Country more than anything & I would give my life If called upon to protect her.

You guys are wasting ink (or media space for that matter...)

Haven't you wonder why our politicians haven't been able to come up with a viable immigration policy? First of all, think economics. Globally.

To start with, most politicians do not really represent their constituents. A millionaire can hardly represent the poor or middle class people at all. So, the same guys who can't tax the super-rich need to keep the flow of cheap labor coming (illegally) until they finally get us all to have shrunk salaries to compete against cheap labor in China, India & others. That's what's coming down the pipe...

Look at some employment agencies. They are not even willing to work with the unemployed. The longer this keeps going the lower salaries desperate U.S. citizen will be willing (and will have to) work for. As soon as the illegals are driven out of the country there will be no excuses for unemployed people not taking those vacant menial jobs...and there is still more unemployment to come.

Do you think all this has anything to do with the U.S. Constitution, entitlements, etc.? Think twice and you'll see the truth behind the veiled screen!!! Start lining-up for your cheap labor position!!!

Once again it is the ACLU, Obama and the Democrats, and Mexico against U.S. taxpayers:

"The Mexican government had also appealed, arguing the law would promote racial profiling, targeting Hispanics especially."

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/08/29/alabama.immigration.law/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Democrats officially no longer work for America, they work for keeping their own power, at any cost.

No...anchor babies...which Canada made illegal years ago.....why?....because it was killing them financially. It's funny how this country fails to learn from others mistakes.

What is it that you don't understand about the Constitution? All the articles were written for good reasons and amendments added the same way. If we start taking away constitutional rights at will where will it stop?

Spoken like an ignorant Yankee.

Fairly, the "asscutting", as you assert, went both ways. The North finally pulled it together by out-industrializing the South.

So what's your point?

If the federal government would do it's job. Then states wouldn't be in this position. Because it doesn't states are trying their own solutions. To many states and cities going bankrupt. They are looking everywhere they can to save money.

I don't understand how its unconstitutional when registering for school to prove your a legal citizen. Did the judge state the federal law Ala was breaking?

Whats the purpose of a social security number then?

So you write this then call someone else a bigot because they don't like mexicans? Hypocritical much?

Hey chris: When did Arizona join the confederacy?

how is a law that prevents criminals from getting something for free assbackwards? so, you're ok paying for a criminal to get free education? doesnt sound like you pay taxes or work for a living.

Officials say it wouldn't prevent illegal immigrants from attending public schools. As it should, who are these officials representing? criminals or american citizens...its pretty obvious. now, that the ppl who have footed the bill for n gotten screwed by the govt, whos failed miserably with our economy, healthcare and education, know that they cant rely on us real citizens for re-election. these pigs have to pander criminals now for votes. this has nothing to do with the law...its a joke.

Blackburn didn't address whether the law is constitutional. Instead, she says she needs more time to consider lawsuits filed by the Justice Department, private groups and individuals that claim the state is overstepping its bounds with the law.

why not? of course, its constitutional. who bought and paid for this judge? yeah, lets consider the arguments for criminals to keep on taking from america.

Chris...Iowa instituted similar laws. Was Iowa part of the Confederacy?

Chris keeps trying to spout that breaking the law is perfectly OK in his book.

Chris I do not remember Arizona being part of the confedarcy???

AZ is not part of the planet :)

Arizona was a Confederate territory, itself an annexation by force from the New Mexico territory.

Chris hasn't quite gotten around to realizing that, with regard to the "ass cutting" that the north finally managed to pull together after years of having their asses kicked, the vast majority of military installations are now within what was once The South. In other words, such an "ass cutting" would not likely come out quite the same today.

Well I guess if I follow the thoughts of the all brilliant Chris, I can go rob a bank tomorrow. No? Well Chris, can you explain to me which laws I can break and which ones I can't.

Chris,

What are you going to state is unconstitutional next: That selling drugs is violating your constitutional rights to earn a living ?

Well I guess if I follow the thoughts of the all brilliant Chris, I can go rob a bank tomorrow

If you rob a bank, you take something (money) away from it's rightful owner, and the owner no longer has access to it.

If you move to the United States, nothing is taken from anyone, and no one is deprived of anything.

So your feeble analogy not valid by any stretch of the imagination.

Duh!

Really? I didn't realize that being here illegally doesn't affect you or I. You may want to do a little research before you cough next time.

Duh!

You may want to do a little research

I have done more than a little, and can back up everything I say. Unlike you.

It's p[retty obvious you blindly accept opinions without any serious inquiry whatsoever. As long the 'opinion' encourages you to claim to be 'better' than some other 'group', you'll swallow it.

It would be merely sad, but you're making life worse for all the rest of us, and your wasting taxpayers dollars to do it.

Illegal is Illegal

I love to here stories of Illegal Aliens being deported 8) it makes me happy that some of the lawbreakers got caught and are now heading back home.

I have to give Obama props for deporting more Illegal scum in his term than Bush did but it's still not enough I want MORE I want all of them who broke the law and cut in front of the Millions who want to come here LEGALLY.

Chris, can you explain to me which laws I can break and which ones I can't.

You can break any law you choose. In fact you probably break laws everyday. But if you choose to break laws then you must be willing to accept the consequences. Which most people are not as evidenced by all the attorneys in business. Do you accept a 90 MPH speeding ticket? No you hire a lawyer and get it reduced to improper equipment. So your righteousness about the law is false.

But if you choose to break laws then you must be willing to accept the consequences.

I find you saying this pretty ironic while supporting illegal aliens to be in the country. Shouldn't they be accepting the consequences of being deported then, since they are breaking the law?

Sorry babie, but if a law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL then it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Toasty...Obama, Holder and the members of Congress all take an oath of office to uphold the law of the land. So are they violating the Constitution by intentionally not upholding the law the land, intentionally ignoring their oath of office?

Not good enough, kiddo. Tell me exactly what it is you think the government is refusing to do to enforce the law. Specific things.

Toasty,

How is it unconstitutional to prove you are a US citizen when registering for school?

Why should anyone have to prove citizenship to go to school, especially when citizenship is not REQUIRED to attend school? How many millions should be spent tracking peoples citizenship in school? Why not spend that money on education?

The Obama administration has deported more undocumented people than any other. So what's your actual beef?

You might want to look over this law John. It's basically the fugitive slave act rewritten. It goes WAY beyond "showing citizenship for school." This bill is dangerous.

So by Toasty's logic we shouldn't have any state law to enforce a federal law and the feds need to enforce their own. OK, stating today all state laws for bank robbery are unconstitutional and no state or local law enforcement personnel can arrest you for bank robbery.

Except that the state law does NOT enforce federal law, Joe. Toasty is right. Some of these 'laws' read like something out of 1930s Germany.

How much time and money is spent raising funds for people in other countries who need help? Yet when people in similar situations to these relief countries come here to give their kids and themselves better lives and all of the other things rational human beings do, some Americans decide that these human beings are worth less than the other ones.

If the problem is children of illegal citizens getting "free schooling", then my suggestion is that parents stop worrying about these kids and start worrying about their own idiot children who log into MSNBC to post comments about possessive, shouting ILLEGALS.b

commonsense..."Except that the state law does NOT enforce federal law"

First...laws don't enforce laws so assume you mean states can't enforce federal law. If that's the case, then you would be exactly dead wrong.

The 287(g) program, one of ICE’s top partnership initiatives, allows a state and local law enforcement entity to enter into a partnership with ICE, under a joint Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), in order to receive delegated authority for immigration enforcement within their jurisdictions.

http://www.ice.gov/news/library/factsheets/287g.htm

sunniebabie

WHAT WHY???? if your here ILLEGAL your ILLEGAL and dont deserve to be here. How can you teach your kids to respect our laws if you start off by teaching them to break the law... i hope all states follow AZ's laws

What you just said reminds me of an old episode of Andy Griffith when Andy was teaching Opy about doing what's right in your heart. He told me Opy if you saw a man drowning in a pond and saw a sign that said no swimming allowed, do you obey the sign (the law) or do you swim and help the man or do you break the law and allow him to drown. The point is circumstances are not as clear cut and dry and the law is not always right. The laws have to be balanced and tempered with compassion as well as logic. I see a lot of potential abuse just from the short excerpts of the law in the article.

Yeah, if only all states had the nuts to violate the constitutional rights of their own citizens...

I wish my state had the nuts to do this

Because you'd have to BE nuts to want your Constitutional rights violated on a regular basis.

"Because you'd have to BE nuts to want your Constitutional rights violated on a regular basis."

Or you'd have to be an obedient Democrat.

I think you need to re-read the Tenth 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"

Immigration IS delegated to the United States.

There is absolutely NOTHING in the Alabama 'law' that prevents immigration of any kind whatsoever.

Maybe the former confederate states had it right all along...let the individual state's decide what's best for them.

Like slavery?

Maybe someone should force you into slavery and then force your children into that same slavery. Maybe you should be denied the right to be paid for your work. Maybe you should be denied the right to learn to read or right. Maybe you should be denied the right to decide what's best for you and your family.

Maybe then you would acknowledge that basic human rights and dignity are important. Maybe the you would acknowledge that we are all created in God's image.

And you really think you know ANYTHING about the Constitution. God save us from the likes of you!

nosense - congrats on the Drama Club award for most irrelevant and absurd post of the vine.

Oh, my, commonsense...thank you for your astute post. Just goes to show that in your case at least, sense really ain't that common after all.

This is the part I love the most...

Maybe someone should force you into slavery and then force your children into that same slavery. Maybe you should be denied the right to be paid for your work. Maybe you should be denied the right to learn to read or right. Maybe you should be denied the right to decide what's best for you and your family.

Let's break it down a bit and respond to each absurd statement:

"Maybe someone should force you into slavery and then force your children into that same slavery."

The fact that every taxpayer in this country is now in debt to the tune of more than $100k to the Federal Government because of their runaway spending policies *does* have us enslaved. And it has my children enslaved.

"Maybe you should be denied the right to be paid for your work."

Right now, I'm having over 40% of my earnings denied me by the same overspending, over-reaching Federal Government referenced above.

"Maybe you should be denied the right to learn to read or right (sic)."

According to the story, 65% of the students are illegal. I wonder if there are any children of American Citizens that are being denied the opportunity of an education because of the abundance of illegal aliens taking up space in the classroom?

"Maybe you should be denied the right to decide what's best for you and your family."

Oh, my...really? You want to go with that one? OK...let's see...can't own a gun for personal protection in some jurisdictions, mandatory seatbelt laws, mandatory helmet laws, smoking bans, forced purchase of health insurance, just to name a few. Granted, some of those are good ideas, but they should be personal choices, not mandates from the government.

As for my knowing anything about the Constitution...apparently, I know more about it than you, and, seemingly, I know more about it than our current President...and he was supposed to be a Constitutional Scholar.

Underdoug...and what, as States, do we do when then Federal Government fails to uphold their responsibilities under Article IV, Section 4?

We just sit back and say..."oh, gee...I wish we had some protection from this invasion...please, oh mighty Federal government, please protect us as you're supposed to!"

Sorry, not this American. You wanna join the club, or are you going to continue to be a Federal Apologist while our country is overrun?

You missing one key element ric. Those statements made by commonsense was aimed at those targeting a specific grp. What you have just stated applies to all of us. Nothing was absurd about them at all.

Much to the chargrine of the teabaggers who've shot themselves in the foot with the Hispanic community and every other group except their fellow bigots.

Does that mean you haven't joined the tea baggers yet?

Az Tumbleweed

This goes back a lot farther than Obama. Look back at your own Republicans.Nixon, Bush,Bush, Reagan and Oh yes. Clinton. I still think we will learn, someday of course, that GWB made his money running drugs across his property. How else does a man start work at 45, while being a drunk, and makes millions?

You have removed all doubt Chris......

Dgibb... Clinton was not a Republican.......dumbass.

Yesterday can't be changed. What are we doing TODAY?

I guess obama is out to make more friends.

Alabama did note vote to put him in office in the first place.

The feds wont do their jobs and they are trying as hard as they can to keep the states from doing it for them.

"Wont do their jobs." What a ling of BS. I drive past a major border patrol office every day, and it's a giant black fortress of paramilitary police-state intimidation. Deportations are up, and illegal crossings are down. So what exactly do you say the government is "refusing" to do?

They're not executing people in the streets, I guess.

Umgawa

I know that DUMBASS, but he was President during this time and he signed the Nafta agreement. But thanks anyway.

NAFTA = Big Mistake

I think the FED is overstepping it's business in state matters! Referendum time! Let the taxpayers decide!!!

Last time I heard the states joined the Union. And by petitioning to do so agreed that they would play by the Feds rules.

A tenant doesn't make the rules of the house.

Doesn't mean they won't try though.

I'll bet that you're one of those baggers who loves to wrap themselves in the Constitution without even knowing what's inside the document.

Seriously, it's always the supposedly "Jeffersonian defenders of the constitution" who are the FIRST in line to tear it up.

I'm curious Chris, why is everyone on here that disagrees with you a "tea bagger?" Could they not just be citizens that feel it isn't ok for you to decide which laws can be broken and which ones can't? Or is that infringing on your Constitutional Rights as well when they disagree with you?

It's infringing on my Constitutional rights when they support state 'laws' that are unConstitutional.

Most of these anti-immigrant state 'laws' are written by out of state organizations founded by or with ties to avowed Nazi sympathizers. The same organizations that write the proposed statutes then charge the state legal fees to defend the unConstitutional crap in federal court.

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2010/04/28/hate-group-lawyer-drafted-arizona-anti-immigrant-law/

Thanks, CS. As if I didn't have enough things keeping me up at night...

Sorry Thomas, but if you don't like your laws getting intercepted, try writing them so that they don't violate the constitution. It's just that simple.

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2010/04/28/hate-group-lawyer-drafted-arizona-anti-immigrant-law/

Pray tell, what is it you say the government is "refusing" to do? And don't give me that BS about "they're refusing to enforce the law." Something specific.

The Constitution is burning because of nativist nutjobs.

Arizona's SB 1070 has cost the state over $100 million so far, without a penny's worth of benefit, and they haven't even started building the concentration camps, er, detention centers, called for to house the people (citizens and non-citizens alike) who get rounded up for not having "papers".

These laws are being written by groups linked to the Nazis Party 1930s Germany. Whose Constitution are you FOR and whose are you against?

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2010/04/28/hate-group-lawyer-drafted-arizona-anti-immigrant-law/

All it's doing is saying that you can't write unconstitutional laws. If you don't like that, try writing them so that they don't violate your citizens' civil rights.

Toasty, what part about reinforcing "aiding and abetting" felons is illegal or unconstitutional?

Cute, but nice dodge.

No Donna, you are.

what reform is that, pray tell? the gov't doesnt enforce its own laws and blocks states from trying to defend themselves from criminals = illegal immigrants and enforcing real laws designed to protect the citizens of this country. the gov't doesnt want to rely on the citizens they've screwed for votes, so they say its illegal to enforce laws against criminals, so they get their hispanic vote? oh, we can't just turn our back on such a large demographic(sarc) uh, yes we can and need to when they are robbing us blind.

reform will happen, how naive are you? the reform is that the govt is twisting laws and the constitution to serve their greedy agenda's. no one in gov't could care less about reform or anything else, except that which furthers their agenda's. always have, always will. what a bunch of pathetic scumbags.

I caught that part about "HAVE TO LEARN SPANISH". You and that little god/idol in DC are not going to force your langage on me.

oooooooh, are you all a-scared? are you clutching to your gun, flag, and bible? uh-oh here we come!!!!

haha, you people are and your paranoia. you people take advantage of the latinos every damn day from the food from your table to the cheap laobr jobs in this NO american wants. You don't like it then do something about it than clutching to your damn gun, flag, and bible.

Mariet how dare you even start to talk about us taking advantage of Latinos, we are not draggin their sorry A** across the boarder and when we ask for a work Visa or proof of citizenship our government smacks us for it. The only low down trash are the boarder jumpers that come here to draw benefits rather than work for a living. They steal SS number, steal ID's and steal tax payer money and do not contribute back into society, they bring their gangs and their drugs. Nashville use to be one of the greatest cities in the South not it is over ran with mexican gangs.

If you love your flag so much, why are you here?

What's unpatriotic about having a second language? This sounds more like a racist attack than anything.

honey, i'm sorry you're so riled up but could it be that if Nashville's (which isn't like South Central so relax yourself) security system sucks? Gangs are everywhere of all colors and stripes (hello Newark?) Trust me, if the Mexicans weren't, another group would take it over because of the lax security system. And BTW.... they are not the only ones who steal idenities and SS numbers, Americans do the same thing too. No, you didn't drag their asses across the border. But sweetie, if you don't like why don't protest it by refusing to buy the fruits and veggies that your local supermarket sells? or maybe you should confront the people who hiring the cleaning people or the nannies, or OOH better yet confront and protest the people who are hiring them in the first place. If there is no demand for cheap labor, then they would see no reason to come here.

BTW, Its gonna take SO MUCH MORE than just yelling out "kick them out!" to solve this problem like dealing with the employers that are hiring them, better diplomatic policy with the mexican govt, and weaken the drug cartels that are destroying towns and forcing the people to run to the states for protection. This problem is HUGE and people have to look past the blind patriotism to really see it.

Knock it off Mariet. If it's so bad here, then don't come here. And if you're here illegally and you have plenty to bitch about, then YOU get the heck out. Most Americans are NOT bigots, so stop reaching for that damned race card (yes, I can see it coming a mile away).

Americans shouldn't be hiring ANYBODY for under the legal wage. And they shouldn't be hiring ANYBODY who is illegal. E-Verify doesn't always work and it can be too slow. There's a lot of fake documentation out there, i.e. lots of Mexicans who are here working full time under one set, while drawing full benefits for free on another (yeah, free, comes out of my paycheck, of course I'm always one who gets stuck paying several pipers).

We have an unbelievable amount of crime committed here in NJ by illegals. Drunks without driver's license, insurance, registration are killing people and getting off with little more than a slap on the hands. Drugs and crime galore, but we're supposed to be happy about all this. And we're spit on and called all sorts of vile things, and then made fun of by persons such as yourself. We're not paranoid, just sick and tired of being taken advantage of. We welcome legal immigrants but we're beyond disgusted with the illegals demanding more and more and more.