Obama can’t stop talking about Arizona law that DOJ hasn’t reviewed yet

posted at 9:00 pm on April 27, 2010 by Allahpundit

Oh, there’s no doubt that the DOJ will challenge the law — the politics demands it, which is one reason why Holder expressed his concern today — but wouldn’t it be keen if the country’s chief law enforcement officer held off on prejudicing public opinion about it until the review is done? In theory (albeit not in political reality), Holder could come back and say that the law is constitutional, which would leave The One … where? Shrugging it off after all but pronouncing it a tool for racial profiling today?

In fact, I don’t think this is even factually correct:

The president said, “you can try to make it really tough on people who look like they, quote, unquote look like illegal immigrants. One of the things that the law says is that local officials are allow to ask somebody who they have a suspicion might be an illegal immigrant for their papers — but you can imagine if you are a Hispanic American in Arizona, your great, great grandparents may have been there before Arizona was even a state. But now suddenly if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to be harassed, that’s something that could potentially happen.”

One of the open questions about the statute is whether it lets cops detain people solely because they’re suspected of being here illegally or whether some independent suspicion of criminal activity has to exist first, at which point the issue of illegal status can be raised. The lawyer who e-mailed me the other day thinks the “lawful contact” provision means that independent suspicion is required; Byron York reads the statute the same way. Assuming that reading is correct, then no, cops can’t pull you aside if you’re on your way to get ice cream with your kid just because they think you might be illegal. Or at least, they can’t do so lawfully: If they abuse their power then the state will pay, both literally and figuratively. And given the publicity this thing is getting, there’ll be no shortage of lawyers eager to make them do so.

I have no problem with lefties — or righties — noting the potential problems in the bill, but given the hysteria swirling around it and the size of Obama’s megaphone, a little bit of that “first-class temperament” we’ve heard so much about would have gone a long way here. Nothing fancy required; a simple “let me hold off on commenting until the Department of Justice weighs in” would have been dandy. But then, now that we’re in midterms mode, The One needs enemies to beat on. How nice that Arizona could help him out. Skip ahead to 4:40 for the relevant clip.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

So the “poor illegals” shouldn’t be forced to carry ID, but US Citizens should be forced to pay for medical insurance???! &%#@* that! Hey Obi, how soon are you coming to Arizona so they can check YOUR ID?

indypat on April 27, 2010 at 9:39 PM

Obama sure wants this Arizona law to go away. Perhaps he’s scheduled a trip to AZ? Just one birther police officer and…

ROCnPhilly on April 27, 2010 at 9:39 PM

I don’t always throw a beer summit after I make needlessly inflammatory racial comments. But when I do, I prefer DOS EQUIS.

Stay thirsty, my friends.

sulla on April 27, 2010 at 9:40 PM

He’s panicing. Desperate to get into full-blown demagogue mode.

So paniced that they haven’t stopped to consider that an OVERWHELMING MAJORITY approve of the law.

Moreover, blacks don’t like illegal immigration either. He will slough off a few votes of some of the more intelligent ones by making a federal case out what a shameless hypocrite and juvenile man he is.

notagool on April 27, 2010 at 9:40 PM

take 2……GD filter BS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

crr6 on April 27, 2010 at 9:29 PM

PPOS that you are…..no law was created, a simple question as to residence…..you disingenuous a$$hat!

dmann on April 27, 2010 at 9:40 PM

crr6 on April 27, 2010 at 9:36 PM

So wait, who get’s to enforce the law then?

Rightwingguy on April 27, 2010 at 9:38 PM

As you know -she and Obama don’t really want enforcement.

CWforFreedom on April 27, 2010 at 9:40 PM

When does he start asking God to damn America?

Mojave Mark on April 27, 2010 at 9:34 PM

I believe he already has.

redwhiteblue on April 27, 2010 at 9:40 PM

If you visit or enter Mexico, you MUST have papers at all times. Would someone please tell Sharpton to go to Mexico and stir up trouble? After all, this is now a one world something or other.

mobydutch on April 27, 2010 at 9:40 PM

It’s funny, the fools that have a problem with this law….the local police are boots on the ground, they can help the federal agents that are spread too thin.
They will come in contact with many more law breakers, not ONLY by coming into the country illegally, but also committing crimes against Arizonians like rape, murder, narcotics dealing….etc…etc….
Common sense ALWAYS pisses off liberals and their ilk.

HornetSting on April 27, 2010 at 9:41 PM

PPOS that you are…..no law was created,
dmann on April 27, 2010 at 9:40 PM

lol.

crr6 on April 27, 2010 at 9:41 PM

My kind of loyalty was to one’s country, not to its institutions or its officeholders. The country is the real thing, the substantial thing, the eternal thing; it is the thing to watch over, and care for, and be loyal to. Institutions are extraneous, they are its mere clothing, and clothing can wear out, become ragged, cease to be comfortable, cease to protect the body from winter, disease, and death.
- Mark Twain

MB4 on April 27, 2010 at 9:42 PM

Did you notice the guy in the background with the Community Organizer shirt on? Was this a campaign stop?

d1carter on April 27, 2010 at 9:42 PM

You were asked what was unconstitutional about the AZ law.

Potentially a number of things,

As usual, you start with a non-responsive answer that sounded good in your head as you typed it.

but most obviously a state has no power to make immigration laws. Immigration is related to foreign affairs, and the federal government has the sole power to make laws with respect to it.

The AZ law doesn’t “make immigration law;” it defines a mechanism for enforcement of current immigration law.

Just like states can’t make their own treaties with foreign nations, or have their own foreign policies…they can’t create immigration law.

This is a true statement, but doesn’t move your argument. States can’t do lots of things, but defining methods and practices of law enforcement within their own borders comes under the heading of “things they can do.”

crr6 on April 27, 2010 at 9:29 PM

massrighty on April 27, 2010 at 9:43 PM

Potentially a number of things, but most obviously a state has no power to make immigration laws. Immigration is related to foreign affairs, and the federal government has the sole power to make laws with respect to it. Just like states can’t make their own treaties with foreign nations, or have their own foreign policies…they can’t create immigration law.

crr6 on April 27, 2010 at 9:29 PM

They’re not making immigration law, just using the ones on the books:

The fact is, since the 1940s, federal law has required non-citizens in this country to carry, on their person, the documentation proving they are here legally — green card, work visa, etc. That hasn’t changed.

(from York’s article)

And when the state cops have a legitimate reason to stop anyone, they can ask for ID. Like a traffic stop. And ask for your driver’s license. So they’re simply doing what they’re entitled to do (ask for ID) and ask for a particular ID that all legal aliens must have on their person already.

Wethal on April 27, 2010 at 9:44 PM

100000 illegals in Cali jails are not enough.

CWforFreedom on April 27, 2010 at 9:44 PM

Potentially a number of things, but most obviously a state has no power to make immigration laws. Immigration is related to foreign affairs, and the federal government has the sole power to make laws with respect to it. Just like states can’t make their own treaties with foreign nations, or have their own foreign policies…they can’t create immigration law.

crr6 on April 27, 2010 at 9:29 PM

Arizona’s not making new immigration law, just enforcing the federal laws already on the books. I think it’s going to be tough to get this one thrown out.

ddrintn on April 27, 2010 at 9:44 PM

As you know -she and Obama don’t really want enforcement.

CWforFreedom on April 27, 2010 at 9:40 PM

That’s the reason for all of the belly-aching; it’s an enforcement bill and we can’t have enforcement of laws that were passed with the intention of never being enforced.

thomasaur on April 27, 2010 at 9:44 PM

Now we all know that there is absolutely nothing between those big ears.

thmcbb on April 27, 2010 at 9:45 PM

Moreover, blacks don’t like illegal immigration either. He will slough off a few votes of some of the more intelligent ones by making a federal case out what a shameless hypocrite and juvenile man he is.

notagool on April 27, 2010 at 9:40 PM

Racist Mexican Gangs “Ethnic Cleansing” Blacks In L.A.

Latino thugs indiscriminately murder blacks regardless of gang membership, genocidal purge aligns with radical Aztlan theology.

Racist Mexican gangs are indiscriminately targeting blacks who aren’t even involved in gang culture, as part of an orchestrated ethnic cleansing program that is forcing black people to flee Los Angeles. The culprit of the carnage is the radical Neo-Nazi liberation theology known as La Raza, which calls for the extermination of all races in America besides Latinos, and is being bankrolled by some of the biggest Globalists in the U.S.

A story carried on the liberal website Alternet, charts an explosion in brutal murders of blacks by Hispanic street gangs in L.A. Far from being gang on gang violence, the Latinos are targeting innocent blacks in accordance with a concerted ethnic cleansing campaign that seeks to eradicate all blacks from Hispanic neighborhoods.

MB4 on April 27, 2010 at 9:45 PM

Obama and the Dems are playing all their cards on amnesty in hope that there will be 15 to 20 million new Democrat voters in November as they will need them to maintain controll of congress. For amnesty to be successful, all other efforts to stop illegal immigration must not be effective.

docdave on April 27, 2010 at 9:45 PM

Am I the only one that has to provide a valid government ID, and most of the time provide my SS number to:

get on a plane
drive a car (well if I get stopped or renew my insurance)
get a bank account
get a mortgage
write a check
register my kids for school (I won’t even include every other document I had to provide for that to prove I live where I live and my kids are legal residents of the County/US!)

Please, explain what the problem is to have to provide proper identification if you are caught committing a crime?

truetexan on April 27, 2010 at 9:45 PM

Wethal on April 27, 2010 at 9:44 PM

Saying it’s similar to the federal law doesn’t really help rebut my argument that it’s preempted by federal law.

Just so ya know.

crr6 on April 27, 2010 at 9:45 PM

As of about 2004 17% of our prison inmates in the USA were illegals. Hey we need more. /

CWforFreedom on April 27, 2010 at 9:46 PM

Racism Rears Its Ugly Head in Mexico

During the much-publicized Minuteman Project in Arizona last March, Fox’s arrogant comments and dismissive attitude didn’t win him too many fans north of the border. Then in May, while making yet another speech about how America couldn’t function without illegal immigrants from Mexico, Fox managed to insult African Americans in the process. He claimed that illegals do the work that “not even black people want to do,” implying that African Americans make up the lowest rungs of society.

About a month later came the unveiling of Mexico’s latest series of postage stamps, featuring none other than a black character like something out of a minstrel show. Needless to say, Fox found himself on the defensive yet again — with good reason.

It turns out that racism in Mexico, both against blacks and dark-skinned indigenous Indians, has a long history. Mexico’s colonial past has left its mark on modern-day society. Prejudice toward “pureblood” Indians from those who are “mixed-blood” (Spanish and Indian) is rife. Almost uniformly, people who are darker-skinned and of Indian descent make up the peasantry and working classes, while lighter-skinned, Spanish-descent Mexicans are in the ruling elite. Fox himself comes from that background, as his appearance makes evident.

This inequality may explain in part why the majority of immigrants coming into the United States fall into the darker-skinned category. Beyond the failure of the Mexican government to sustain a decent economy, darker-skinned Mexicans have a difficult time getting work because of job discrimination. According to the Web site IndigenousPeople.net, “sixty percent of Indians over 12 years of age are already unemployed, and of those who work, most earn less than the minimum wage of about $2.50 a day.” The same story notes that Mexico City’s top restaurants don’t allow patrons to bring along Indian domestic workers for fear of tarnishing their business image.

MB4 on April 27, 2010 at 9:46 PM

crr6 on April 27, 2010 at 9:38 PM

I guess the problem I have with that is that just because you are wanted by the FBI, doesn’t mean you can’t be apprehended by local police.

I mean, I agree, a state can’t technically make laws about immigration, but they can say “Hey, if you’re illegal, we can arrest you.” That’s pretty much what the law says…or at least what my learn’ed legal mind says. (Hint, I’m not a “learn’ed legal” anything.)

Rightwingguy on April 27, 2010 at 9:46 PM

Saying it’s similar to the federal law doesn’t really help rebut my argument that it’s preempted by federal law.

Just so ya know.

crr6 on April 27, 2010 at 9:45 PM

Have you proved that it’s preempted by federal law?
Or, have we just your say-so?

massrighty on April 27, 2010 at 9:47 PM

Weirdly CRR will not comment on the point that the US Government is failing to live up to its Constitutional duty to protect this country. Hmmmm

CWforFreedom on April 27, 2010 at 9:47 PM

Saying it’s similar to the federal law doesn’t really help rebut my argument that it’s preempted by federal law.

Just so ya know.

crr6 on April 27, 2010 at 9:45 PM

So, do you have the SAME problem with Phoenix, a designated sanctuary city? They are breaking the law…if you are SO DAMN WORRIED ABOUT THE LAW, what about that?

HornetSting on April 27, 2010 at 9:47 PM

Saying it’s similar to the federal law doesn’t really help rebut my argument that it’s preempted by federal law.

Just so ya know.

crr6 on April 27, 2010 at 9:45 PM

It’s not “similar to” federal law. It’s enforcing federal law that already exists.

ddrintn on April 27, 2010 at 9:48 PM

Maybe we could do what Eric Holder did when there was a little Cuban boy named Elian here in the U.S.
We can find a guy dressed like a soldier to stick a machine gun in his face.

Freeze.

NeoKong on April 27, 2010 at 9:48 PM

Well, don’t forget guys — Obama went to Harvard, so he’s a constitutional law expert. And you can see this in the scholarly works that have been published in the … er … uh … well in his great legal work for the … umm … in the … ehhhh … well because he lectured to whiny little liberal University of Chicago law school freshmen and they really liked him.

And he appointed the worst clown to sit as Attorney General in 100 years and voted against that awful John Roberts, clearly he understands … um … never mind.

Jaibones on April 27, 2010 at 9:48 PM

The Arizona law is already a pathetic and wimpy compromised thing. We need to write the Arizona law makers and tell them to unwimp the law by making it a felony for illegals to be on US/Arizona soil…the same way Mexico makes it a felony to be an illegal alien on their soil.

Buddahpundit on April 27, 2010 at 9:49 PM

crr6,

You really need to quit pretending you’re a law student with a 4.0 GPA. No realtime aspiring law student would be commenting here at HotAir as often as you do and still have time to prepare for tomorrows classes. An aspiring law student would be studying. BTW, just so you know, Wikipedia doesn’t hand out diplomas.

Americannodash on April 27, 2010 at 9:49 PM

It’s the professorial impulse: if asked a question, try to give an answer. (I know this from my own lectures, but sometimes you just have to say “I don’t know”, vel sim.)

Tzetzes on April 27, 2010 at 9:50 PM

Have you proved that it’s preempted by federal law?
Or, have we just your say-so?

massrighty on April 27, 2010 at 9:47 PM

That’s pretty much the consensus among anyone who knows anything about federal immigration law. I admittedly didn’t know too much about it before this whole issue came up, but one of my roommates clerked for an immigration court, so he brought me up to speed. He also emailed his buddy who works at the DOJ about it, and he said it’s likely preempted by federal law.

Also, I’ve read a few articles by law professors (including Chemerinsky) who’ve said it’s facially unconstitutional for the same reason. It’s a pretty straightforward issue.

crr6 on April 27, 2010 at 9:50 PM

NeoKong on April 27, 2010 at 9:48 PM

Something like these?

Rightwingguy on April 27, 2010 at 9:51 PM

I admittedly didn’t know too much about it before this whole issue came up, but …

crr6 on April 27, 2010 at 9:50 PM

…you slept in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

ddrintn on April 27, 2010 at 9:52 PM

This simply reinforces my idea of renouncing that ichy restrictive American citizenship so that as an illegally present person within the boundaries of the USA I can take advantage of all the special rights afforded to non citizens. Sign up for entitlements, use the emergency room, use the free school system, work for cash under the table.

HELL YEAH DEMOCRAT PARADISE!

Inanemergencydial on April 27, 2010 at 9:52 PM

Saying it’s similar to the federal law doesn’t really help rebut my argument that it’s preempted by federal law.

Just so ya know.

crr6 on April 27, 2010 at 9:45 PM

How is the state trooper asking someone for ID pre-empted by federal law? Enforcement of state laws is permitted under the Tenth Amendment. The state is simply asking for one kind of ID as opposed to another.

The feds have not preempted state law by telling state law enforcement that they can only ask for drivers’ licenses when they stop somone for any alleged infraction of state law. If someone is an illegal, they’re turned over to ICE, which is the practice already.

Law student, know about federal preemption. I do appellate law. And I think you should read Wyeth v. Levine. There are some doubts as to the continued existence of field preemption after SCOTUS’ opinion in Wyeth.

Wethal on April 27, 2010 at 9:53 PM

crr6 on April 27, 2010 at 9:50 PM

O.k. so what does the law mandate that’s unconstitutional?

Lats time I checked it said “basically”, that cops can check your papers if there is reasonable suspicion.

Rightwingguy on April 27, 2010 at 9:53 PM

ddrintn on April 27, 2010 at 9:52 PM

Hey, that’s been my excuse for a lot of things.

Rightwingguy on April 27, 2010 at 9:53 PM

He’s panicing. Desperate to get into full-blown demagogue mode.

So paniced that they haven’t stopped to consider that an OVERWHELMING MAJORITY approve of the law.

Moreover, blacks don’t like illegal immigration either. He will slough off a few votes of some of the more intelligent ones by making a federal case out what a shameless hypocrite and juvenile man he is.

notagool on April 27, 2010 at 9:40 PM

Absotively, posilutally, presactly!
keep the heat on their seats!

Chewy the Lab on April 27, 2010 at 9:54 PM

crr6 on April 27, 2010 at 9:50 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

/pround rino

Inanemergencydial on April 27, 2010 at 9:54 PM

crr6 on April 27, 2010 at 9:50 PM
…you slept in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

ddrintn on April 27, 2010 at 9:52 PM

I HEARD he fell asleep under obama’s lecturn.

HornetSting on April 27, 2010 at 9:55 PM

Man, he is really going to milk this issue for everything.

Wow. Shameless.

Mr. Bipartisan, Mr. “We have to stop the old ways of doing things”.

Just another hack. Yeah, Republicans have them too.

Just spare me the hope and change nonsense from now on.

SteveMG on April 27, 2010 at 9:56 PM

Law student, know about federal preemption. I do appellate law. And I think you should read Wyeth v. Levine.

Wethal on April 27, 2010 at 9:53 PM

Ok, will do. Like I said, I’m no expert on this immigration law. My posts have just reflected the consensus from my buddies who do know a lot about it.

crr6 on April 27, 2010 at 9:56 PM

As far as checking for ID from a possible lawbreaker, wasn’t that what got Louis Henry Gates in a snit and then got him arrested?

He was found breaking into a house, and claimed he was the owner. Didn’t have ID on him, did he?

Oh, well, that’s why the Cambridge police behaved stupidly.
They asked for ID.

Wethal on April 27, 2010 at 9:56 PM

Annnnnnnnddd it’s probably unconstitutional.

There’s that too.

crr6 on April 27, 2010 at 9:21 PM

crr6,

How about you and PEBO and all the other “armchair justices” relax, read what actual law says, instead of relying on the daily kos or huffpo for your source information.

Jumping off the the deep-end with wild speculation about what it is or isn’t is bad form and a slightly excited RUSH TO JUDGEMENT.

belad on April 27, 2010 at 9:57 PM

This simply reinforces my idea of renouncing that ichy restrictive American citizenship so that as an illegally present person within the boundaries of the USA I can take advantage of all the special rights afforded to non citizens. Sign up for entitlements, use the emergency room, use the free school system, work for cash under the table.

HELL YEAH DEMOCRAT PARADISE!

Inanemergencydial on April 27, 2010 at 9:52 PM

That’s an immediate healthcare tax exemption right there. Oh, don’t forget to demand that everyone speak to you in your own language.

ROCnPhilly on April 27, 2010 at 9:57 PM

The music stops on November 2. There aren’t enough chairs.

platypus on April 27, 2010 at 9:58 PM

Damn! Hotair ate another one of my post.

MB4 on April 27, 2010 at 9:58 PM

Have you proved that it’s preempted by federal law?
Or, have we just your say-so?

massrighty on April 27, 2010 at 9:47 PM

That’s pretty much the consensus among anyone who knows anything about federal immigration law. I admittedly didn’t know too much about it before this whole issue came up, but one of my roommates clerked for an immigration court, so he brought me up to speed. He also emailed his buddy who works at the DOJ about it, and he said it’s likely preempted by federal law.

Also, I’ve read a few articles by law professors (including Chemerinsky) who’ve said it’s facially unconstitutional for the same reason. It’s a pretty straightforward issue.

crr6 on April 27, 2010 at 9:50 PM

Consensus?
One of my roommates knows some stuff?
And he has a buddy?
You read an article?

These are not compelling arguments. Consensus is the utter malarky that brought us the now-fully-discredited AGW fiasco. When you use weasle-words like “pretty much” and “likely preempted,” you leave lots of room to walk away from your position when it is discredited.

When asked for proof, offer proof; real, compelling, absolute proof – not the fluffy “I know a guy who knows a guy” proof you’ve cited here.

massrighty on April 27, 2010 at 9:58 PM

crr6 on April 27, 2010 at 9:56 PM

LOL. Don’t kill the messenger guys!

Seriously, I’m probably just as informed on constitutional law as you are…probably less. I guess if you could point out what exactly makes this law unconstitutional I could work it out.

I agree states can’t set immigration policy. That’s the federal government’s job. THAT I KNOW, this is just setting enforcement.

Anyway, dude. No sarcasm. I’m really curious.

Rightwingguy on April 27, 2010 at 9:59 PM

I wonder what obama would have to say about the Arizona company that had to fire three hundred illegal aliens AND THOSE JOBS WERE FILLED RIGHT AWAY BY AMERICAN CITIZENS….you, with all that laser like intensity on jobs and all……

HornetSting on April 27, 2010 at 9:59 PM

No mention in the last three weeks of the HEALTH CARE BILL disaster. Remember “Repeal and Replace”?

They are leading us buy the nose, knowing damn well that illegal aliens are our push-button issue. Crap! We’re falling for it!

Who is John Galt on April 27, 2010 at 10:00 PM

Assuming that reading is correct,

Haha. EPIC ASSUMPTION.

Where’s the codification? If your lawyer pal thinks that “lawful contact” means “reasonable suspicion,” why didn’t the legislature use the term, um, “reasonable suspicion?” They use it later on in the statute anyway.

I can’t find anything in Arizona law which clarifies what a “lawful contact” is, and if we are to take it as the words mean literally (and what other option do we have other than the comical solution to read “lawful contact” as “reasonable suspicion”), that means that as long as the contact is not illegal, it is lawful, and then you move on to the next requirement of the statute.

Proud Rino on April 27, 2010 at 10:01 PM

Crap! We’re falling for it!

Who is John Galt on April 27, 2010 at 10:00 PM

Nah. We just can’t do anything about it at the moment. It’ll be big in Nov.

ROCnPhilly on April 27, 2010 at 10:02 PM

Ok, will do. Like I said, I’m no expert on this immigration law. My posts have just reflected the consensus from my buddies who do know a lot about it.

crr6 on April 27, 2010 at 9:56 PM

Plaintiff was allowed to pursue a state products liability claim for failure to give adequate warning labels on a prescription drug. (Drug was administered by a tech, who didn’t do the IV right, and ended with Levine’s arm being amputated.)

Wyeth said compliance with FDA was enough, and feds had preempted warning label law for prescription drugs. Court said Ms. Levine could still sue.

Wyeth was a stunner. Had the other lawyers in my firm going “WTF? Is there any preemption left?”

Wethal on April 27, 2010 at 10:02 PM

Law student, know about federal preemption. I do appellate law. And I think you should read Wyeth v. Levine.

Wethal on April 27, 2010 at 9:53 PM

Law student, I believe Wethal teaches law. Be careful when she’s around.

INC on April 27, 2010 at 10:02 PM

They are leading us buy by the nose

FIFM

Who is John Galt on April 27, 2010 at 10:02 PM

No mention in the last three weeks of the HEALTH CARE BILL disaster. Remember “Repeal and Replace”?

They are leading us buy the nose, knowing damn well that illegal aliens are our push-button issue. Crap! We’re falling for it!

Who is John Galt on April 27, 2010 at 10:00 PM

The America hating leftist democrats led by Obama are setting up the largest transfer of taxpayer money to a single political party in the history of the world…Cap and Trade.

Inanemergencydial on April 27, 2010 at 10:03 PM

INC on April 27, 2010 at 10:02 PM

Apprentice meets master. Interesting….

Rightwingguy on April 27, 2010 at 10:03 PM

But now suddenly if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to be harassed, that’s something that could potentially happen.”

I’m sure the parents of 3-year-old Marten Kudlis would would disagree, Mr. President.

The Ugly American on April 27, 2010 at 10:05 PM

The America hating leftist democrats led by Obama are setting up the largest transfer of taxpayer money to a single political party in the history of the world…Cap and Trade.

Inanemergencydial on April 27, 2010 at 10:03 PM

Yep, CCX apparently.

Who is John Galt on April 27, 2010 at 10:05 PM

I find myself incredibly irritated that Obama says families going out for ice cream are going to be harassed by the police.

He needs police protection wherever he goes, but he is happy to smear cops for his own political benefit.

MayBee on April 27, 2010 at 10:05 PM

Politics and law – not the best match and certainly not one made in heaven.

platypus on April 27, 2010 at 10:07 PM

He needs police protection wherever he goes, but he is happy to smear cops for his own political benefit.

MayBee on April 27, 2010 at 10:05 PM

He’s not smearing cops, the police run the risk of being sued by Arizonans if they don’t enforce the law to the liking of Arizona residents. They have to enforce this thing with vigor, dude. And if lawful contact means something less stringent than reasonable suspicion, then the law seems to me to be unconstitutional.

I’m enjoying how no one seems to know what a ‘lawful contact’ is. Who wrote this POS law?

Proud Rino on April 27, 2010 at 10:11 PM

“But now suddenly if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to be harassed, that’s something that could potentially happen.”

Yeah. A lot of things may potentially happen, President Fear-monger. Lets wait until it does, if it does.

Putz.

ROCnPhilly on April 27, 2010 at 10:12 PM

crr6 has no friends, she’s a loner with internet access and is addicted to the abuse she recieves here at HotAir. What’s up with that?

Americannodash on April 27, 2010 at 10:14 PM

Annnnnnnnddd it’s probably unconstitutional.

There’s that too.

crr6 on April 27, 2010 at 9:21 PM

Annnnnnndddd Obama couldn’t give a damn about constitutionality. He’s just looking for new dependents to vote for his party. That said, the bill is perfectly fine.

jimmy2shoes on April 27, 2010 at 10:16 PM

The Dirty Little “Secret”:

The reason that politician supporters of Open Borders want it is so that they and/or their campaign contributors can have serf labor. They would probably prefer actual out-and-out slaves but that is illegal.

Open Borders Democrats also want it so that those who are now illegal can become legal and vote for them, or vote for them anyway.

Does anyone think that many of these Open Borders politicians really care one wit otherwise for the illegals.

Does anyone think that any of the Open Borders politicians are going to invite these Mexican Indios and Mezclados to join their elite/exclusive golf clubs?

Come to live in their gated communities, other than as servants?

Invite them to their yachts, other than as low paid deck hands and/or servants?

Invite them to their cocktail parties?

Introduce them to their daughters?

The big majority of the Mexicans who have come here/will come here are Indios and Mezclados, not the Spanish descendant fair-skinned ruling class of Mexico. This is a form of ethnic cleansing by Mexico’s ruling class.

So these Open Borders politicians are aiding and abetting and facilitating ethnic cleansing.

If the U.N. were not such a joke, they would all be standing trial for trying to reintroduce a form of latter-day-slavery in the United States and for the mass ethnic cleansing of Mexico.

MB4 on April 27, 2010 at 10:19 PM

Shut the f up, you socialist assho%%

james23 on April 27, 2010 at 10:22 PM

Here’s a fun thing to do – go look up Arizona laws and try to find a definition of “lawful contact.” I found one Arizona case which mentions “lawful contact” in a criminal law context, but it has to do with bribing a public official.

Maybe we could just get a bunch of conservatives to speculate on what they *hope* it means, and then Arizona could argue that to SCOTUS.

Proud Rino on April 27, 2010 at 10:22 PM

MB4 on April 27, 2010 at 10:19 PM

tl; dr

Proud Rino on April 27, 2010 at 10:22 PM

The big majority of the Mexicans who have come here/will come here are Indios and Mezclados, not the Spanish descendant fair-skinned ruling class of Mexico. This is a form of ethnic cleansing by Mexico’s ruling class.

So these Open Borders politicians are aiding and abetting and facilitating ethnic cleansing.

If the U.N. were not such a joke, they would all be standing trial for trying to reintroduce a form of latter-day-slavery in the United States and for the mass ethnic cleansing of Mexico.

MB4 on April 27, 2010 at 10:19 PM

Links?

Who is John Galt on April 27, 2010 at 10:22 PM

crr6 has no friends, she’s a loner with internet access and is addicted to the abuse she recieves here at HotAir. What’s up with that?

Americannodash on April 27, 2010 at 10:14 PM

A coming new chapter, chapter 47, in the next release of my book, “Treating the mentally disturbed for fun and profit”.

Sigmund on April 27, 2010 at 10:23 PM

Proud Rino on April 27, 2010 at 10:22 PM

…I’ll keep my definition of “lawful contact” to myself….

Rightwingguy on April 27, 2010 at 10:23 PM

Shut the f up, you socialist assho%%

james23 on April 27, 2010 at 10:22 PM

+1

Who is John Galt on April 27, 2010 at 10:23 PM

…I’ll keep my definition of “lawful contact” to myself….

Rightwingguy on April 27, 2010 at 10:23 PM

That’s probably good in terms of not embarrassing yourself, but that’s not going to help anyone make the argument that this law isn’t blatantly unconstitutional.

Proud Rino on April 27, 2010 at 10:24 PM

I do appellate law.
Wethal on April 27, 2010 at 9:53 PM

BTW that’s awesome, and it’s ultimately what I’d like to end up doing. I’m taking appellate practice next semester and I can’t wait.

crr6 on April 27, 2010 at 10:25 PM

Proud Rino on April 27, 2010 at 10:24 PM

Uhm….that was an oblique attempt at a joke.

As for embarrassing oneself on comment threads…I think you might have beaten me to it…

Rightwingguy on April 27, 2010 at 10:25 PM

crr6 on April 27, 2010 at 10:25 PM

(Furiously googling “appellate law” so as not to appear ignorant.)

Rightwingguy on April 27, 2010 at 10:26 PM

this law isn’t blatantly unconstitutional.

Proud Rino on April 27, 2010 at 10:24 PM

Enforcement of laws on the books is unconstitutional.

Got it!

Inanemergencydial on April 27, 2010 at 10:27 PM

Proud Rino on April 27, 2010 at 10:24 PM

Perhaps I should have added a “wink, wink, nudge, nudge ‘Say no more’”.

Rightwingguy on April 27, 2010 at 10:27 PM

the argument that this law isn’t blatantly unconstitutional.

Proud Rino on April 27, 2010 at 10:24 PM

By the AZ State Constitution? IDW, has anyone researched this?

Ha, Federal Constitution doesn’t seem to apply.

Who is John Galt on April 27, 2010 at 10:27 PM

Barry O is having another moment when it would have done him well to keep his IGNORANT mouth SHUT!

GarandFan on April 27, 2010 at 10:29 PM

That’s probably good in terms of not embarrassing yourself, but that’s not going to help anyone make the argument that this law isn’t blatantly unconstitutional.

Proud Rino on April 27, 2010 at 10:24 PM

Are you ever going to stop being a blatant doofus?

platypus on April 27, 2010 at 10:29 PM

All these responses, and yet nobody seems to know what a lawful contact is.

Proud Rino on April 27, 2010 at 10:30 PM

Proud Rino on April 27, 2010 at 10:30 PM

It’s what I was doing last night.

Rightwingguy on April 27, 2010 at 10:31 PM

We\’re going to need support here in Arizona. It is going to rain down on us hard. The president and the entire left has just declared war. God help us

azkag on April 27, 2010 at 10:33 PM

Proud Rino on April 27, 2010 at 10:30 PM

It’s what I was doing last night.WINK, WINK, NUDGE, NUDGE! “SAY NO MORE!”

FIFM.

Rightwingguy on April 27, 2010 at 10:33 PM

We\’re going to need support here in Arizona. It is going to rain down on us hard. The president and the entire left has just declared war. God help us

azkag on April 27, 2010 at 10:33 PM

Give it a rest.

Proud Rino on April 27, 2010 at 10:33 PM

All these responses, and yet nobody seems to know what a lawful contact is.

Proud Rino on April 27, 2010 at 10:30 PM

Do you have a Black’s Law Dictionary? If not, go down to your local law library and look it up in theirs. And while you’re down there, check out Words and Phrases.

And feel free to wander around. There’s lots of good stuff and most law librarians are eager to help people be less stupid about the law.

platypus on April 27, 2010 at 10:34 PM

Rightwingguy on April 27, 2010 at 10:33 PM

Thanks. Protip: It’d be easier to tell if you were joking if your jokes were funny. Then you wouldn’t have to say all that stuff afterward!

Proud Rino on April 27, 2010 at 10:35 PM

Proud Rino on April 27, 2010 at 10:35 PM

Thanks comedic master.
;-)

Rightwingguy on April 27, 2010 at 10:35 PM

Again, how can Barack Insane Obama be upset about asking for proof of one’s legal status to be in the United States but not one bit bothered by requiring EVERY US Citizen to provide proof of medical insurance?

It is the most hypocritical thing I have ever witnessed.

katablog.com on April 27, 2010 at 10:36 PM

Proud Rino on April 27, 2010 at 10:33 PM

GFYSLF puke!

dmann on April 27, 2010 at 10:36 PM

Proud Rino on April 27, 2010 at 10:35 PM

Protip: Don’t get all offended by stuff people say. Sometimes people aren’t insulting your intelligence.

Thought I’d return the favor. ;)

Rightwingguy on April 27, 2010 at 10:37 PM

A colleague of mine LEGALLY immigrated from Alberta Canada to the U.S. in 1998. BTW, she’s a licensed critical care nurse with a Masters degree in Nursing who has had it up to here with Canada’s health care system. She went through the naturalization process and became a U.S. Citizen LEGALLY!

WTF makes you frickin’ “open borders” jackals think ANY ILLEGAL should be able to cut in line in front of those LEGAL immigrants who respect our laws and play by our rules?

Our nation welcomed my Canadian born friend with open arms because she chose the honorable and LEGAL approach to becoming a U.S. Citizen. The U.S. has always welcomed our LEGAL IMMIGRANTS with open arms!

All the rest of you line-cutters … GO HOME and if you want to become U.S. Citizens … OBEY OUR LAWS!

If you don’t respect our U.S. laws, you’re nothing but a goddamn opportunistic low-life moocher. GET OUT AND STAY OUT!

bannedbyhuffpo on April 27, 2010 at 10:37 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4