Yea, JU's sarcasm tag are not working these days.

I heard that idea from one of the talk radio hosts.  But politics being what they are, it will never happen.  Regardless of whom is in the white house.

I know, that was part 2 of the story.  But I did my part.  I still patronize the latino markets (mostly because you cannot find chorizo, menudo, or decent hominy in the chains).  So they will survive.  Just with a bunch of gringos patronizing them instead of illegals.

Maybe it has something to do with high unemployment, a recession in progress, and everyone is tightening their belt due to the unknown effects the latest round of government bills is going to have. Of course if one believes the administration's line... everything is hunky dory.

Judge Bolton doesn't seem to agree with much of it.  She enjoined enforcement of most of it today.

She appears to think that the only ones that are required to obey the laws of the land are citizens.  Since she struck down parts that are enforced in all 50 states - like presenting ID.

It does confirm one thing that has been rumored.  Democrat appointed judges do not know the law, nor do they know how to read it.

In a way I'm glad the judge ruled this way. It's going to keep the issue in the forefront. Most citizens, in Arizona and nationwide, support the original Arizona law and the coming backlash against the opposition will not be so easily forgotten by the voters. It might even flush out a few of the less vocal illegal supporters. 

It's a curious ruling, what I've read of it.  Had to tie herself in some logical knots to arrive at her conclusions, it seems, imputing positive intent that wasn't explicitly there - sort of assbackwards to the way they usually approach things.  And she seems to be, in part, making policy determinations (it would 'interfere' with the feds other responsibilities?) rather than ruling on the legitimacy of the law itself.  I don't see how a judge can give the feds, or any other jurisdiction, a pass on enforcing its laws because it would be 'too hard' or something.

The law could easily be remedied by amendment to fix her intent objections, and probably will be if that part of her ruling is upheld on injunction appeal or at trial.  As to the policy side of her ruling, that's some weirdness that only an appeals court can sort out; from the sound of things, the injunction will be appealed by the state, perhaps even up to SCOTUS, then there will be the actual trial eventually, potentially followed by trial appeals, again even up to SCOTUS.

The issue will indeed be on the front burner through the November elections, and way beyond.

Arizona is trying to solve a problem that is specific to their state.  With an increase in violent and drug-related crime directly related to our lack of a secure border there, the locals are trying to help themselves.  This isn't a national issue - but a large number of people that don't live in that state are all up-in-arms.  Bet things would be different if you (collectively) were at-risk.  I say let Arizona try to solve their problem.

I am going to start calling you Pollyanna!   You find a silver lining in every cloud.

But I agree with you.  That is why most elected democrats were so pissed that Obama pursued it.  it is a losing issue for them, and now the idiot of a judge just made sure it would still be around come November.

With this Judges move at least we are going to get results soon.  Once the Superior court agrees with this Judges ruling and its at the SCOTUS this issue will be on the path of getting resolved.  When the Superior court has seen it the Supreme Court will try to fit it into its schedule probably sometime this year.

The problem is still those cities and states that have sanctuary laws because they'll fight to keep them.  I don't understand how for illegals that these states/cities won't help the federal but they'll gladly help if there is any criminal element.  Isn't this racial profiling?  As well as aiding a criminal.  A criminal is any who breaks a law.  Not going through the proper process of becoming a citizen or ignoring that process is illegal.  Since it is illegal this means that a law is being violated and the person is a criminal.

I have never seen with an issue right becoming wrong and wrong becoming right as with this issue.  If I break the law there are consequences to me breaking the law whether I am here legal or illegal.  These states/cities (ie the ones that are sanctuary) are essentially saying its alright to break some laws.

But the thing is, you are 100% right.

Arizona is trying to solve a problem. The problem is the increase in violence and drug-related crime.

Now, call me naive, but I don't think the drug cartels lords are interested in some of the crappy jobs offered to illegal immigrants. If you see illegal immigration as a problem in itself, fine. But illegal immigration and drug-related high violence are two independant problems that happens to share the same ethnicity.

You can solve one without solving the other. There won't be a lessening of aliens if you stop the cartels from stepping in the U.S. with their violence, and you won't stop the drug traffic if you lessen the number of aliens in your states, 'cause ultimately, it's american citizens who buy the drugs and sell the weapons. These won't be stopped with a law asking for proof of your nationality.

I think people just lump the two problems together because of the common ethnicity.. which is sad.

Remember logic 101. 

1. All A are in B

2. But all B are not in A

In other words, the illegal immigrant problem is not all about drugs.  But the importation of the drugs is all about the illegal immigrant problem.  Just yesterday, they had a story of ICE actually doing their job (it was news because it is so rare).  They rounded up 86 illegal immigrants (WOW!  Only 19, 999, 914 to go!).  The news profiled one of them.  He has been CONVICTED of running Drugs, 2 DUIs, 1 Felony Assault, and he has already been deported once before!

Nice fellow.

BTW:  He was not Mexican.

So... one out of 86 was a felon?

Wait. The thing is, the responsible for the traffic are the ones staying on the Mexico's side of the border. All the others are mere leg-runners. If you cut the illegals for the leg-work, they will simply go to the american citizen who wants to make a drug-buck, like gangs.

You aren't solving the problem, just shifting the symptoms, and making honest aliens pay in the process.

I assume you mean 'legal' aliens here, but this is false anyway.

The law won't burden legal aliens any more than outstanding warrant checks, child-support scofflaw checks, etc., to which we are all subject when stopped on suspicion of breaking a law.

Many legal aliens want this law enforced as much as native citizens.

Will the law make the drug problem go away?  No.  Will it make a serious dent in it here?  Yes.  Will it remove the incentive to come here illegally for the benefits we witlessly make available to them no questions asked (thanks to fed mandates, BTW)?  Yes.  Will it put a stop to the Reconquistas?  No.  But it will tell them we have no intention of letting them overrun us uncontested.

BTW, despite the publicity & boycotts, not to mention the economy, AZ hotel occupancy rates are up about 7% over last year so far.