Court denies request for expedited hearing on Arizona immigration law

Redress said:

Not granting a request to expedite is not the same thing as delaying.

Click to expand...

That may be true, but I find it a little fishy that they deny a high profile and very politically motivated case an expedited hearing and then schedule it until November after the elections, especially when the majority of Americans support the AZ law.

digsbe said:

That may be true, but I find it a little fishy that they deny a high profile and very politically motivated case an expedited hearing and then schedule it until November after the elections, especially when the majority of Americans support the AZ law.

Click to expand...

Popularity is not a reason to expedite. In fact, there is no real reason to expedite. That is the problem here. In the absence of compelling reason, why expedite?

texmaster said:

If you lived on the border, you would consider it an emergency.

Click to expand...

Oh, bullpuckey. If it's an emergency, the government should have acted sooner. This is not a new problem.

Since the state failed to act promptly, they have no grounds to yark now that the judge isn't giving them special treatment.

Redress said:

Popularity is not a reason to expedite. In fact, there is no real reason to expedite. That is the problem here. In the absence of compelling reason, why expedite?

Click to expand...

The compelling reason is the problems illegal aliens cause in AZ. Shouldn't they also offer a good reason for not expediting it? I just see this as possibly a politically motivated action. I believe AZ requested the trial to take place in September, and they denied them an expedited request. They could have said "no, but October would work." Why wait until November? This is a political case where the majority of Americans support the law. It was requested that the case be expedited, and that was denied for no good reason (from what I understand). No effort was made to even try to make this sooner. Instead they have scheduled it to be in November after national elections.

sb1070 is unfair because only hispanics will be affected by it. The law will not be applied to african-americans or caucasians equally.

Vic Mango said:

sb1070 is unfair because only hispanics will be affected by it. The law will not be applied to african-americans or caucasians equally.

Click to expand...

and you know this how? This is such bs. Question, do you dispute the fact that the majority of illegals in AZ are coming from mexico? What part of the law don't you understand about having a reasonalbe suspection the person is illegal, of course this is only done after a legal stop. I say enact the law, then if it is abused hold the LE accountable.

mike2810 said:

and you know this how? This is such bs. Question, do you dispute the fact that the majority of illegals in AZ are coming from mexico? What part of the law don't you understand about having a reasonalbe suspection the person is illegal, of course this is only done after a legal stop. I say enact the law, then if it is abused hold the LE accountable.

Click to expand...

How do I know it will be applied only to hispanics? Common Sense. I dont dispute that many illegals in Arizona come from mexico, but that has nothing to do with me. Most serial killers in the USA are white. How about the next time there is a serial killer in Arizona, we make every white person give a DNA sample. Not the same thing?
Of course not, because its not happening to you. There are all kinds of legal stops. Technically I could get pulled over for going 4 miles over the speed limit. The white guy will get a ticket, I will get a ticket AND have to have my immigration status verified.

Why not deal with this through Congress. A well crafted immigration bill can be as effective as a 50 foot fence. However, when an immigration bill is introduced in congress, the republicans always say no.

Vic Mango said:

How do I know it will be applied only to hispanics? Common Sense. I dont dispute that many illegals in Arizona come from mexico, but that has nothing to do with me. Most serial killers in the USA are white. How about the next time there is a serial killer in Arizona, we make every white person give a DNA sample. Not the same thing?
Of course not, because its not happening to you. There are all kinds of legal stops. Technically I could get pulled over for going 4 miles over the speed limit. The white guy will get a ticket, I will get a ticket AND have to have my immigration status verified.

Click to expand...

I agree Congress should deal with it. They have not for years and years. So if they fail to act, that leaves the States to act. IMO, the judge ruling was wrong. Federal laws requires legal immigrants to carry papers that prove they are in the country legally. To much politcial correctness for me. Maybe if States like Az keep in heat on, Congress will actually do something.

You continue to spin the pro illegal points. If your license is valid, end of story. I also reject your political hack about republicans always say no. It shows your political bias.

So with your solutions, the States takes it in the shorts till Congress passes something that works. Besides the Dems have the majority. Don't see anything coming from them.

I fully understand this emotionally charged issue, and WHY it is so emotionally charged. I lived in Arizona for several years. I saw the issues..Hell, I live in Pennsylvania, and I see illegals working here as well. I will say, however, not a single one of them is working a job that anyone but my 15 year old son would consider doing. That being said, I have to say something else. My husband and I both served in the Air Force for several years. During that time, I served with many americans of Hispanic descent. One of them, in particular, lives in Arizona now. He is not first generation..he is not even second generation. He is a third generation American Hispanic who has served his country, and now lives in Arizona. Now...Say this friend of mine is walking down the street, and is asked to show his documentaion? Were I him, and this were to happen, I would be absolutely and utterly offended and upset about it just on principle. Now, lets go further, and say he is out without his wallet. Now, they are going to haul him into the police station and make him sit around for several hours while thye dig him out of the database. Not only is it an incredible waste of the officers' time. It is an incredible waste of HIS time, and while I am not a fan of litigiousness, it is also a case for a sweet little lawsuit.

How about, instead of knee jerk legislation, we sit down and do something that will actually work, and not put undue burden on our police, undue burden on the many legal hispanics in this country, and even more undue burden on our taxpayers?
Because deny it as many try to, this IS a kneejerk piece of legislation. Its a "we're not gonna take it anymore" type of law, that will, in the long run (and even the short run apparently) be way more complex, confusing, and troublesome than not having the law in the first place. I am a firm believer that instead of arguing incessantly, people should make a decision and give it a go to see what happens. But there also needs to be SOME real thought made on it beforehand. And I don't see that thought put into this law.

Yeah, the courts don't play politics.

Just like Mexico has the best interests of the United States at heart.

BCR said:

what does it matter, the law will be declared unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

So, you're saying that becuase the courts are corrupt and are going nullify the law anyway, that it doesn't matter if its later.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Yeah, the courts don't play politics.

Just like Mexico has the best interests of the United States at heart.

Click to expand...

Well Mexico does have the best interests of the U.S. at heart... the best interest to sell more illegal drugs.

The Uncola said:

Blah blah blah. Save it for the dogwhistle crowd. I see it for what it is, just another reason to hassle brown people. Being white, I hear the underlying message, just like the bigots. I simply reject it because it's morally bankrupt. I couldn't care less who does or doesn't agree with me.

Click to expand...

Hmmmm....schizophrenia could explain your ability to hear hidden messages that don't exist.

However, READING the bill reveals no racism, no bigotry, no nothing except the desire to provide Arizona law enforcement the tools to allow the state to comply with existing federal law.

Are you saying that a state law that does nothing but mirror a federal law is racist when the federal law is not?

Do you understand the meaning of the word "illegal"?

Ockham said:

Well Mexico does have the best interests of the U.S. at heart... the best interest to sell more illegal drugs.

Click to expand...

No.

MEXICO's interes in the United States is deeper than that.

Mexico wants to steal back the land it sold in the 1840's, and as much more as their invading hordes can latch onto.

That's the only reason one nation deliberately exports a huge percentage of it's population into another. Imperialism.

And this nation is so infested with fools and idiots and flat-out traitors willing to say any lie needed to sustain the process that we're having difficulty passing common sense laws to slow the invasion or even enforcing the laws that already exist.

jamesrage said:

Pro-illegals regularly deliberately spew lies about opposition by calling them racists or xenophobic or anti-immigrant. Pro-illegals dishonestly lumps illegals in with legal immigrants by calling illegals just "immigrants" or "undocumented immigrants" and refers to anti-illegal immigration laws as "anti-immigration" laws. Pro-illegals use terms such as "undocumented immigrations", "migrants", "migrants", "laborers", or "Undocumented Americans" to hide the illegality of illegal immigration. Do you think these pro-illegals believe what they say when they accuse the opposition of bigotry,racism or xenophobia? I do not believe for a second they honestly believe the lies they spew, its nothing more than a tactic to accuse to the opposition of illegal immigration as bigots, racists or xenophobes since that is all they have to resort to. They know they can't win a debate on illegal immigration using the truth.

Click to expand...

I call them what they are.

INVADERS

The Uncola said:

And bigots regularly try to use stealth-speak to hide their bigotry.

Click to expand...

Well, yes.

They say "undocumented" not illegal.

They say "immigrant", not "alien".

They avoid all discussion of the meaning of the word illegal. Just as a hint for you, a person committing an illegal act is a criminal.

Hence, the bigots, who hate America, discuss "undocumented immigrants", whereas the honest American simply calls them "illegal criminal aliens", or, for short, "invaders".

Bigots cavil about words.

Americans just use the damn things the way they're meant to be used.

MrVicchio said:

It was denied a speedy hearing for political reason, and we all know the 9th will just rubberstamp the Obama Admin's position. They don't want this going to the SCOTUS because there they cannot garuntee the outcome.

Click to expand...

Well, someone probably told the Ninth Circuit that it's going to take some time to Pelican Brief the USSC to fit the Progressive Model.

texmaster said:

If you lived on the border, you would consider it an emergency.

Click to expand...

Hell, I live hundreds of miles from the border and can see that it's an emergency.

The nation unemployment rate has soared to an official number of >9% under the Messiah. In many areas the number is twice that.

Shipping the Invaders back to their proper side of the border would alleviate much of this misery.

The rationale for denying the hearing is very clear: November mid-term elections. I'll just tell it like it is here.

Judge Bolton, who likely lends Democrat (again, calling it as I see it), did the Dems a "favor" by putting this issue on standby until after the political climate settles in November. Now, those who disagree with her decision will likely argue that the government/Obama Administration doesn't want to touch illegal aliens because it helps generate sympathy among the Hispanic population. But is it possible there's another reason for this?

Is it possible that the Obama Administration has immirgration reform squarely on their agenda and would rather begin to tackle this issue in earnest once the Congress comes back in session after the mid-term elections so that they'll know exactly where the party lines stand in November? Is it possible that Judge Bolten render a fair verdict which still gives AZ lost of room to do what's morally right in their state w/o putting their own law enforcement agents at risk? Is it possible that by striking down portions of the AZ Immigration law, Judge Bolton has placed the state of AZ and the country on a path where the unconstitutionality of separate state immigration laws would be moot assuming immigration reform is done right at the federal level?

This country ran into similar state-sponsored issues along the lines of citizenship. The country will likely go thru similar issues where immigration reform is concerned. And for the record for those who honestly belief that the Obama Administration is dragging their heals on the immigration issue, I didn't see Ford, Carter, Reagon, Bush-41, Clinton or Bush-43 tackle this issue and none did so for various reasons. But here we have President Obama who has said time and again that he wants to deal with immigration reform legistlation. Just think about that for a moment...

Six former presidents and not one has dared tackle immigration reform...but this one (eventually, and soon) will.

TacticalEvilDan said:

Oh, bullpuckey. If it's an emergency, the government should have acted sooner. This is not a new problem.

Since the state failed to act promptly, they have no grounds to yark now that the judge isn't giving them special treatment.

Click to expand...

Oh, bull puckey.

The controlling politicians in the federal government don't want the laws they were forced to pass to be enforced. It's been illegal to invade this nation for decades, and no one's done anything effective yet in Washington.

Under the Bush administration, the DHS intervened and STOPPED Border Patrol and ICE sweeps that were VERY effective in moving invaders out of the Los Angeles area.

The Messiah is actively subverting a perfectly constitutional effort by Arizona to protect it's lawful residents from the effects of an invasion He doesn't want to see impeded.

The DEMOCRATS in the House gave the President of Mexico a standing ovation for calling Arizona racist. So we know who the worst of our domestic enemies are.

November is our opportunity to punish them, and the exceedingly liberal, often reversed Ninth Circus Court of Appeals (no, I don't make spelling errors like that) is paying attention to politics and attempting to relieve the pressure on the treasonous Democrats by postponing the review of the stay on the law.

MEANWHILE, Americans in Arizona are being murdered by invading aliens, and this in itself constitutes an emergency that Arizona should use to force expediting this matter on the court's agenda.

Americans.

Being murdered.

By Invaders.

That's why this is an emergency.

Objective Voice said:

The rationale for denying the hearing is very clear: November mid-term elections. I'll just tell it like it is here.

Judge Bolton, who likely lends Democrat (again, calling it as I see it), did the Dems a "favor" by putting this issue on standby until after the political climate settles in November. Now, those who disagree with her decision will likely argue that the government/Obama Administration doesn't want to touch illegal aliens because it helps generate sympathy among the Hispanic population. But is it possible there's another reason for this?

Is it possible that the Obama Administration has immirgration reform squarely on their agenda and would rather begin to tackle this issue in earnest once the Congress comes back in session after the mid-term elections so that they'll know exactly where the party lines stand in November? Is it possible that Judge Bolten render a fair verdict which still gives AZ lost of room to do what's morally right in their state w/o putting their own law enforcement agents at risk? Is it possible that by striking down portions of the AZ Immigration law, Judge Bolton has placed the state of AZ and the country on a path where the unconstitutionality of separate state immigration laws would be moot assuming immigration reform is done right at the federal level?

This country ran into similar state-sponsored issues along the lines of citizenship. The country will likely go thru similar issues where immigration reform is concerned. And for the record for those who honestly belief that the Obama Administration is dragging their heals on the immigration issue, I didn't see Ford, Carter, Reagon, Bush-41, Clinton or Bush-43 tackle this issue and none did so for various reasons. But here we have President Obama who has said time and again that he wants to deal with immigration reform legistlation. Just think about that for a moment...

Six former presidents and not one has dared tackle immigration reform...but this one (eventually, and soon) will.

Click to expand...

Instead of using the code words "immigration reform", use the word "amnesty".

Immigration reform will include, in the real meaning of the word, granting people who obeyed this nation's laws an opportunity to immigrate into the nation AFTER they receive permission to enter. No form of amnesty or amnesty-with-a-wrist-slap is acceptable to real americans who do not want criminals in their midst.

Yes, no one's tackled the issue of shutting the borders and shipping the Invaders home.

That doesn't mean changing the word "amnesty" to "immigration reform" is the correct path.

The correct path is to make the criminals unwelcome, uncomfortable, and unemployed. They can self-deport, after they leave a set of fingerprints and DNA sample at the exit.

Vic Mango said:

sb1070 is unfair because only hispanics will be affected by it. The law will not be applied to african-americans or caucasians equally.

Click to expand...

That's weird.

My wife is not a US citizen. She's French. If she went through Arizona, she'd affected by this law to.

What kind of racist is it that says only hispanics will be affected?

mike2810 said:

and you know this how? This is such bs. Question, do you dispute the fact that the majority of illegals in AZ are coming from mexico? What part of the law don't you understand about having a reasonalbe suspection the person is illegal, of course this is only done after a legal stop. I say enact the law, then if it is abused hold the LE accountable.

Click to expand...

They have to lie about the law and what it says, because if they didn't lie they'd be forced to either admit there's nothing wrong with the law or, worse, be quiet becuase they'd have nothing to say.

mike2810 said:

I agree Congress should deal with it. They have not for years and years. So if they fail to act, that leaves the States to act. IMO, the judge ruling was wrong. Federal laws requires legal immigrants to carry papers that prove they are in the country legally. To much politcial correctness for me. Maybe if States like Az keep in heat on, Congress will actually do something.

You continue to spin the pro illegal points. If your license is valid, end of story. I also reject your political hack about republicans always say no. It shows your political bias.

So with your solutions, the States takes it in the shorts till Congress passes something that works. Besides the Dems have the majority. Don't see anything coming from them.

Click to expand...

What if I hand the officer an out of state drivers liscence? It is more complicated than that. The only people who are trained and have the proper tools and databases are federal immigration officers. I think the democrates should use the same tactics as the republicans did during the bush administration, but some democratic congresspeople are wussies. Its clear that both sides of this issue want something done AND NOW.

Ockham said:

Well Mexico does have the best interests of the U.S. at heart... the best interest to sell more illegal drugs.

Click to expand...

havent you heard about the war the mexican govmt has against the drug cartels. These cartels are just a dangerous as the taliban. The death toll is big. If we really wanted to put a hurt on these cartels and drugs, mexico could clamp down from the south and america from the north, and meet at the border. That would eradicate all the big drug cartels and hopefully the desire for citizens to join them. But no, we have invested vast amounts of resources in iraq. Too bad.