Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bentway who wrote (572814)	6/21/2010 1:51:34 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 1570952

Your genius made the mistake of talking honestly "off the record". Lets face it, Obama and the leftwing of the Democratic party want to create 12M more Democratic voters by giving citizenship to all the illegals. That's why they're refusing to seal the border.

To: bentway who wrote (572814)	6/21/2010 1:56:44 PM
From: Brumar89	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570952

Is Pres. Obama Holding Border Security Hostage? If you read my blog regularly you know how important outreach to the minority community is to me. If you heard my post that Rush Limbaugh read on air in full, you know why. I also explain it here.I write about the black community, but the same can be said for the Hispanic community as well. If you read me regularly you also know that I am critical of those on both the far left and the far right on immigration reform. The far left seem to want open borders, and the far right won't be happy until every illegal is deported. Both are wrong, and both bring us to lousy immigration "policy" that we have now. We have been stuck for decades with no real reform. We have the left screaming if you so much as mention a fence. We have the right screaming if you so much as mention a way for illegals to become legal. The truth is that Americans in general see both sides. We can't for the life of us understand why we can't compromise and get the job done. As I have said before, I supported George Bush's immigration reform, and we should have passed it then. It was fair, and it would have worked. It allowed illegals, who are exploited every day in this country, to come out of the shadows and register as a guest worker. They would have been required to return to Mexico and re-apply as a guest worker after a few years, AND it would have put them at the back of the line for citizenship. We missed that opportunity for common sense reform because of stubborn Republicans, and Democrats who won't support anything a Republican President does, even if they agree with it. Now we have Arizona Senator Jon Kyle telling an audience that in a private meeting Pres. Obama told him that the problem with securing the border is that Republicans won't have a reason to support immigration reform. Senator Kyle then said, "In other words, they're holding it hostage." Make no mistake, when Pres. Obama talks about immigration reform, he means full blown amnesty. All illegals made legal. Period. Why? To secure Hispanic votes for generations for Democrats. My hope is that the Hispanic community can learn from the black community, and see what voting in lock step with the Democrats have done to and for them (listen to the Rush link above for details on that, or read the piece here). Just about every reasonable person agrees that we must secure the border first. Immigration reform means nothing if we continue to have a pourous border. Not securing the border first was one of the mistakes that Bush made. Pres. Obama needs to understand that Americans don't see this as a political game. This is about national security as well. Especially with violent drug wars and kidnappings going on literally within hundreds of yards from our border. And even within our borders. Drug related kidnappings are occuring in border states. Not only does securing our borders keep those who would do us harm from entering our country, but maybe, just maybe, we can stem the flow of illegal drugs. There is simply no upside to a pourous border. None. The reason the majority of Americans support the Arizona law is out of frustration. They simply want the security of our nation taken care of. It is the number one job of our government. Almost everyone agrees on that. And it shouldn't be held hostage to political games. blogs.chron.com

To: bentway who wrote (572814)	6/21/2010 1:57:00 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 1570952

where's the lie. breitbart.tv

To: bentway who wrote (572814)	6/21/2010 2:00:31 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1570952

Anti-Arizona Lawsuit Would Be Unprecedented and Unnecessary [Kris W. Kobach] When, during an interview in Ecuador, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton let the cat out of the bag about the Obama administration’s plan to sue Arizona, she did more than foul up the Justice Department’s eventual roll-out of the plan. She also revealed who was sitting in the driver’s seat when it came to the Justice Department’s decision: “President Obama has spoken out against the law because he thinks that the federal government should be determining immigration policy. And the Justice Department, under his direction, will be bringing a lawsuit against the act.” In other words, the same political reasoning that drove President Obama to criticize (and mischaracterize) the Arizona law is now driving the Justice Department to bring the suit. Not to mention the potential embarrassment that would result if the Justice Department had made an independent decision to the contrary. Barack Obama, constitutional scholar that his fans make him out to be, can’t say one thing and have the Justice Department say another. The only problem with Obama’s strategy is that the federal judges will actually read the Arizona law, and they will find that there is precious little for the Justice Department to attack. The opinions of the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits of the U.S. Court of Appeals (which are all of the Circuits that have addressed the issue) support the authority of Arizona to enact its law. Another obstacle for the Justice Department is the fact that the Department’s Office of Legal Counsel in 2002 authored an opinion on the topic, finding that state police officers are well within their rights to make arrests of illegal aliens. [ IOW, the Obama administration and DOJ are committed to a fight they're doomed to lose. Wow, that is smart! Harvard lawyer smart. Almost as smart as that plan to close Gitmo by last January and to bring 911 defendants that had already pled guilty to Manhattan for new trials with all the rights that citizens have. Even his own party won't let him do those things. Now the Obama adm will wage an unpopular legal fight they can't win before Congressional elections. Genius! ] The legal frailty of the administration’s position is bad enough. What makes it worse is the unprecedented nature of an administration suing a state, absent truly extraordinary circumstances. Normally, considerations of comity and federalism demand restraint in the consideration of any such suit. The administration’s lack of restraint is deeply troubling. To put it in perspective, consider how restrained Bush’s Justice Department was. During 2001–2009, numerous states and cities enacted laws rewarding immigration that clearly violated the express terms of federal law. For example, ten states enacted laws giving in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens who attend their state universities, which violates 8 U.S.C. § 1623; and dozens of cities adopted sanctuary policies that prevent their police officers from reporting illegal aliens to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1373 and 1644. [ When you consider those facts, you have to conclude a big part of the Democratic party is pledged to promote illegal immigration. ] Even though the states and cities involved were violating the plain text of federal law, the Justice Department held its fire. Only when the state of Illinois declared that a federal program allowing employers to verify their employees’ work authorization electronically — E-Verify — would not be permitted in Illinois, did the Justice Department take the unusual step of filing suit. Doing otherwise would have allowed one state to opt out of what Congress had said must be a nationwide program. The Bush Justice Department won easily. In contrast, the Obama administration’s suit against Arizona will be on thin ice from the start. There is no federal statute that the administration can point to that Arizona has violated. They will rely on activist theories of federal preemption that the ACLU has been peddling with little success for years. But even if one were to imagine that the Obama administration had a strong legal argument, there would be yet another reason not to file the lawsuit: It is completely unnecessary. Five suits have already been filed by the ACLU and their fellow travelers. The issue is already teed up for the federal courts to decide. The administration achieves nothing by launching its own litigation. Except, of course, for rallying the Democrats’ open-borders base before the 2010 elections. [ Given the popularity of the Arizona law, I think we can be glad the Democrats are making this an election issue. ] — Kris W. Kobach is a professor of law at the University of Missouri (Kansas City) School of Law and one of the principal authors of Arizona SB 1070. He served as Attorney General John Ashcroft’s counsel and chief adviser in Immigration Law. He is currently a candidate for the office of Kansas secretary of state. corner.nationalreview.com