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.

No, I meant "honest" alien, who's only fault is to break the laws of the country they want to live in and work in that prevent them from doing exactly that. If you disregard that single element, they are law-abiding human being.

I'd qualify them as "honest" alien, which is way better for your country than any dishonest citizen.

It's hard for me to get my mind around the concept of 'honest criminal', and what that has to do with 'dishonest citizen'.  Furthermore, it's not necessary to break the laws of our country to achieve that objective.

Don't remember for sure what country you hail from, Ciko, but I think Canada.  I don't believe it's possible for me to simply drive to BC, buy a house & live there indefinitely.  If I'm wrong, I'll let the illegals here know that if they just keep going north, hassle-free nirvana awaits them.  Of course, San Fran may snag them along the way - lots of gardening work there, particularly at Newsome's house.

No. You are right.

Your point being...?

Profiled!  They did not go into the background of the other 85.  So maybe all are (unlikely) or maybe just him.  I suspect he was the worst and that is why he was profiled.  Never-the-less, at best you can say only 1.2% are involved int he drug trade.  Extrapolating, that means about a quarter million of the illegals are.  So that is not a problem?

one thing we know for sure.  100% of them are criminals.

No, you are not SOLVING the problem.  But you are cutting off the legs of the problem.  Man has tried to "solve" the problem of murder for over 6,000 years. And has not.  Does that mean that we just give up and not try to go after the ones that do commit it?

That is an oxymoron.  clearly they are not honest as they have already broken laws, so they are also not law abiding.  There are millions of LEGAL immigrants in this country and yes, they are honest and law abiding.  But criminals, by definition, are neither.

BTW: On a related front, it appears that even the ultra-liberal administration of Australia is fighting the same fight - but with honesty.  Australia has an immigration problem as well (albeit not as bad since they have no land borders), and their administration is doing way better than the Obama one.  At least they are not locking up the people trying to address the problem like Obama is.

I didn't think I was being that oblique.

So 'honest' illegal aliens are welcome in Canada?  If so, I may become a coyote-once-removed.

You appear to have, to quote Roger Waters, the 'bravery of being out of range'.

No they are not welcomed. Off course it's illegal.

My point, if you need it spelled out, is that you have bigger problem than people wanting to come over and do work. Namely, drug cartel being one of them, which aren't automatically linked to the influx of people who wants to go working in a garden.

So putting a higher priority on those people as a problem rather than the increase of drug-related violence isn't the best strategy. The influx of immigrants aren't the origin of the drug problem, drug consumption in your country is, which is commited in majority by your own legal citizens.

I'd pick an law-abiding illegal immigrant (yhea, I know it's an oxymoron, but you know my meaning) over a drug-trafficking citizen as a neighbour any day, as one works, generates a salary, pay sales taxes, buys stuff, and is not doing anything to worsen the society he's in.

The other... not so much.

edit: Hell. I'd rather have an illegal alien who works and respect the law in my country rather than have a citizen on welfare who does nothing with his day and just suck government's money while doing nothing.

You are being obtuse on purpose here. I clearly, CLEARLY said that if you look aside that point of fact, that they have to violate the law regarding work and immigration, they are law-abiding. Thus, they are causing less trouble to the society they live in. Thus, they are being honest people.

Being honest doesn't mean being law-abiding. Being dishonest doesn't mean being a lawbreaker. A good person can cross the border to come working in the USA. Is that person stopping being a good person because of that?

No. He's still a good person who decided to break a law against a victimless crime.

I'd rather you catch drug-cartel lords than Good Pedro.

No not obtuse.  Think of it this way.  I lie to you.  YOu catch me in the lie.  Are you going to blindly trust me again?  Well, some would say yes.  But most people (and the smart ones) would say no.  In other words, if they are willing to break the law when they hope no one is looking, then they will break it again when they feel in the same position.

There are 86 illegals.  A drug lord is among them.  Got one, didn't we?  And how?  by Enforcing existing laws.

But it's a bad argument. It all depends on the importance of the lie.

Problem is, if you lie to me like in your example. For you, it's a white lie. It's unimportant, it's a side-note, something that wasn't worth worrying about, something without consequence. For me, it was important lie, and I would be right to be angry about the lie.

Does it make you a chronical liar? Not really. For you, it wasn't really important to say the truth at that point of time. For me, it was. You haven't violated your moral system by lying to me, and I shouldn't judge you as a chronical untrustworthy person solely based on that event.

An illegal immigrant crosses the border. For him, it's not that important of a law. It's not conflicting with his own morality system. It's a bad law, he feels. Does it means he's gonna steal, rape and murder? No. Because for him, all these heinous crimes are bad in itself, not because the law said so.

Crossing the border makes you a criminal, because you defined it as a crime. If you remove that sole designation, you end up with a big majority of nice fellas who just want to work. Definining crossing the border as a crime doesn't make them hardened criminals who will automatically join the drug cartels and start breaking into your home at night.

Not really. You caught one of the drug-runners, not one of the big shots. Others will replace him, that's all.

It's popular to consider it a 'victimless crime' but it's not, any more than tax evasion, intentional or otherwise, is a 'victimless crime'.  The direct and indirect consequences are real and cost taxpayers (the victims in this case), even allowing for sales taxes they pay, a lot of money.  And fostering a culture of willful disregard for our laws is erosive.

How many laws of which kind are you allowed to break and still be a 'good person'?  In this case, he's only still a 'good person' because you, in your infinite wisdom, have decided that breaking our immigration laws is morally and ethically acceptable.  Your moral relativism is not just relative but irrational.

Ain't that a pleonasm? You accuse my moral relativism of being relative?

I accuse water of being wet.

You don't know that. You don't know how much they bring to your economy by their labor. Or how much money they allow companies to save up, and thu turn a better profit. You just bring general statement that supports your political ideology without any factual backing.

I do not say keep fostering them. I say spend your focus on more damaging crime.

Because a moral person is somebody who, by definition, hold up his own morality system and respects it. An immoral person is somebody who doesn't follow his own feeling of right and wrong. An amoral person is somebody who has no moral system.

I define that good person to still be a good person because he broke a law he feels is unjust to have the freedom of work and live where he wishes. Ain't that the whole point of America? I ain't saying it be bad or good. I just putting a little moral relativity into the debate, by pointing out that your arguments seems to cater to your own choir. You define moral "realities" such as "crossing the border makes you a bad person", which makes everybody an automatic loser in the argument.

It's not a matter of "how many laws", it's a matter of "which laws". Would somebody who broke into a plantation during the pre-civil war period to free slaves be an immoral person? Or those who helped running the Freedom Train? You better say "yes", otherwise, you're quite the hyppocrit about you denouncing moral/legal relativity.

You simply want to demonize those who are on the other side of the fence, be that fence the fence of this argument, or the fence of the border, or the fence of the law. Regardless of context, background or belief. And you do this because it's convenient to demonize, to make people hate and fear. Fear-mongering has happened a long during that debate. Fear-mongering about high criminality of the immigrants, about the killing of policemen, about people losing their jobs, "stolen" by aliens. All of these issues have been twisted, exagerated, put out of proportion nor context.

I say the people of Arkansas should focus on stopping the drug smuggling, 'cause that's a clear and definite crime that hurts the society as a whole (except firearm salesmen).

Let's just have all banks remove their tellers and open the vaults. People are basically "honest" and will take only money that they have in their accounts. Some will even deposit to their accounts, just lay it on the counter with a note, you know the honor system. The "dishonest" people, that take what is not theirs, well we'll just catch them later. How long will this bank be in business?

Key:

All Banks= USA

Tellers= Border Patrol

Vault= border

Honest person= Pedro, Olev, Chin, etc. the undocumented worker looking for work

Dishonest person= Undocumented Drug dealers, prostitutes, gangs, etc.

money= taxpayer provided services, programs, infrastructure, etc.

accounts= Taxes collected

Why does the original statement sound like a bad idea to most (criminals might like it as well as "good" people that might take advantage of the situation despite their normal character), but sounds great to some when the words are changed to reflect illegals? When these same folks remove the locks from their doors and allow anyone (remember no profiling, don't assume that guy with the needle tracks up his arm just wants to shoot up in your bathroom, maybe he just has to pee) to use their home as they please, then I won't refer to them as hypocrites.