<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
xmlns:rawvoice="http://www.rawvoice.com/rawvoiceRssModule/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Key Provisions of AZ Law Blocked</title>
	<atom:link href="http://tammybruce.com/2010/07/key-provisions-of-az-law-blocked.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://tammybruce.com/2010/07/key-provisions-of-az-law-blocked.html</link>
	<description>Independent. Conservative. Unruly.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 May 2012 12:56:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: aardvark</title>
		<link>http://tammybruce.com/2010/07/key-provisions-of-az-law-blocked.html#comment-127718</link>
		<dc:creator>aardvark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 05:24:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tammybruce.com/?p=36074#comment-127718</guid>
		<description>Did you need professional counseling to get over it? Or is the chat room adequate therapy? Nude talk therapy could work - that&#039;s it, we&#039;re therapy! Can we deduct TAM membership as a medical expense? Are there deductions anymore with ObamaDeathCare? Oh well, here we are, nekkid in chat...ready to help any and all who need us. :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Did you need professional counseling to get over it? Or is the chat room adequate therapy? Nude talk therapy could work &#8211; that&#8217;s it, we&#8217;re therapy! Can we deduct TAM membership as a medical expense? Are there deductions anymore with ObamaDeathCare? Oh well, here we are, nekkid in chat&#8230;ready to help any and all who need us. :)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris</title>
		<link>http://tammybruce.com/2010/07/key-provisions-of-az-law-blocked.html#comment-127676</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 20:57:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tammybruce.com/?p=36074#comment-127676</guid>
		<description>One night long ago, I was walking out of a grocery store, toward home. I didn&#039;t drive, so I suppose it looked odd for a dumb 22 year old white kid to be walking across a parking lot. An officer confronted me and he asked me for ID. I couldn&#039;t cry teh racisms.. ageisms maybe? or.. I dunno.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One night long ago, I was walking out of a grocery store, toward home. I didn&#8217;t drive, so I suppose it looked odd for a dumb 22 year old white kid to be walking across a parking lot. An officer confronted me and he asked me for ID. I couldn&#8217;t cry teh racisms.. ageisms maybe? or.. I dunno.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: cwsjd</title>
		<link>http://tammybruce.com/2010/07/key-provisions-of-az-law-blocked.html#comment-127670</link>
		<dc:creator>cwsjd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 18:23:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tammybruce.com/?p=36074#comment-127670</guid>
		<description>Thierry wrote: and for the record an employer is required by federal law to ask potential employees for their papers – and the types acceptable are listed along with a number to call to verify SSNs -to prove they are entitled to work in the usa. how is this legal when asking someone for the same information when suspected of a crime is supposedly forbidden?

Good question with a very simple answer. Asking a prospective employee for documentation papers is legal because the federal government has enacted a statute making the hiring of an illegal alien a crime. Remember that states can enforce federal law. But the state cannot go beyond the scope of the federal law. Only the federal government can determine the legal status of a non-citizen. Thus, the state cannot enact a law that requires state actors to determine the legal status of the non-citizens they arrest or detain. If the feds refuse to cooperate with that, there is literally nothing the state can do about it. Our problem -- as it has been from the beginning -- is the federal government&#039;s refusal to enforce the immigration laws on the books. The solution to that is a political one. Vote the creeps out and elect a Congress and President who will enforce the federal laws. We have that opportunity in November and I hope we take advantage of the opportunity in a big way. The best part of this Court&#039;s order is that politically it will backfire on the liberals more than they can even imagine. The problem is in D.C., not Phoenix.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thierry wrote: and for the record an employer is required by federal law to ask potential employees for their papers – and the types acceptable are listed along with a number to call to verify SSNs -to prove they are entitled to work in the usa. how is this legal when asking someone for the same information when suspected of a crime is supposedly forbidden?</p>
<p>Good question with a very simple answer. Asking a prospective employee for documentation papers is legal because the federal government has enacted a statute making the hiring of an illegal alien a crime. Remember that states can enforce federal law. But the state cannot go beyond the scope of the federal law. Only the federal government can determine the legal status of a non-citizen. Thus, the state cannot enact a law that requires state actors to determine the legal status of the non-citizens they arrest or detain. If the feds refuse to cooperate with that, there is literally nothing the state can do about it. Our problem &#8212; as it has been from the beginning &#8212; is the federal government&#8217;s refusal to enforce the immigration laws on the books. The solution to that is a political one. Vote the creeps out and elect a Congress and President who will enforce the federal laws. We have that opportunity in November and I hope we take advantage of the opportunity in a big way. The best part of this Court&#8217;s order is that politically it will backfire on the liberals more than they can even imagine. The problem is in D.C., not Phoenix.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: cwsjd</title>
		<link>http://tammybruce.com/2010/07/key-provisions-of-az-law-blocked.html#comment-127667</link>
		<dc:creator>cwsjd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:15:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tammybruce.com/?p=36074#comment-127667</guid>
		<description>Pat: The voters of Arizona have a great opportunity this fall to make it illegal for John McCain to continue to be the state&#039;s U.S. senator. I hope they exercise that right by defeating him in the primary and electing J.D. Hayworth. Every election cycle, McCain starts talking like a conservative. After the election, he votes like a liberal. I&#039;m weary of that behavior in far too many Republicans. (By the way, you and I have often conversed on Twitter. You&#039;re terrific.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Pat: The voters of Arizona have a great opportunity this fall to make it illegal for John McCain to continue to be the state&#8217;s U.S. senator. I hope they exercise that right by defeating him in the primary and electing J.D. Hayworth. Every election cycle, McCain starts talking like a conservative. After the election, he votes like a liberal. I&#8217;m weary of that behavior in far too many Republicans. (By the way, you and I have often conversed on Twitter. You&#8217;re terrific.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: cwsjd</title>
		<link>http://tammybruce.com/2010/07/key-provisions-of-az-law-blocked.html#comment-127661</link>
		<dc:creator>cwsjd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:34:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tammybruce.com/?p=36074#comment-127661</guid>
		<description>Maynard, you are right to be frustrated. The government could prosecute illegals for entering the country illegally; but absent proof of how and when the illegal actually entered the country, the prosecution would fail. Besides, you can well imagine the mess in the federal courts should the government try to vainly prosecute illegals for entering the country. The better solution is for Congress to pass a one-line statute that makes it a crime for illegal aliens to be IN the U.S.  Currently, being illegally in the U.S. is a civil infraction, much like running a stop sign. Congress can change that, but has never had the political will to do so. The politicians, mostly liberals but not exclusively so, see the illegals as a voting block. The issue of illegal aliens is clearly a double-standard as you point out. Conservatives in control of Congress and the White House can fix the problem.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Maynard, you are right to be frustrated. The government could prosecute illegals for entering the country illegally; but absent proof of how and when the illegal actually entered the country, the prosecution would fail. Besides, you can well imagine the mess in the federal courts should the government try to vainly prosecute illegals for entering the country. The better solution is for Congress to pass a one-line statute that makes it a crime for illegal aliens to be IN the U.S.  Currently, being illegally in the U.S. is a civil infraction, much like running a stop sign. Congress can change that, but has never had the political will to do so. The politicians, mostly liberals but not exclusively so, see the illegals as a voting block. The issue of illegal aliens is clearly a double-standard as you point out. Conservatives in control of Congress and the White House can fix the problem.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: cwsjd</title>
		<link>http://tammybruce.com/2010/07/key-provisions-of-az-law-blocked.html#comment-127660</link>
		<dc:creator>cwsjd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:27:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tammybruce.com/?p=36074#comment-127660</guid>
		<description>The weakest, and possibly incorrect part of the Order is the provision you have cited. Judge Bolton accepted without any documentation the federal government&#039;s argument that if the state of Arizona uses federal data bases and other resources to check the status of an alien, it would be a burden on the government. If the Order gets overturned, it will be on this basis because the federal government cannot prove the assertion that its resources will be overtaxed and burdened by Arizona. On the brighter side, the Order upholds Arizona&#039;s position that knowingly hiring an illegal alien is a state crime. That is where enforcement should be concentrated anyway. With very minor adjustments, the federal statutes can be fixed if we had a Congress that wanted to actually fix it. For example, Congress can make it a federal crime for an illegal alien to be in the U.S.  Despite numerous opportunities, as Judge Bolton points out, it has refused to enact that as law. That single provision would go a long way toward solving the whole problem. We need to take back Congress.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The weakest, and possibly incorrect part of the Order is the provision you have cited. Judge Bolton accepted without any documentation the federal government&#8217;s argument that if the state of Arizona uses federal data bases and other resources to check the status of an alien, it would be a burden on the government. If the Order gets overturned, it will be on this basis because the federal government cannot prove the assertion that its resources will be overtaxed and burdened by Arizona. On the brighter side, the Order upholds Arizona&#8217;s position that knowingly hiring an illegal alien is a state crime. That is where enforcement should be concentrated anyway. With very minor adjustments, the federal statutes can be fixed if we had a Congress that wanted to actually fix it. For example, Congress can make it a federal crime for an illegal alien to be in the U.S.  Despite numerous opportunities, as Judge Bolton points out, it has refused to enact that as law. That single provision would go a long way toward solving the whole problem. We need to take back Congress.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: thierry</title>
		<link>http://tammybruce.com/2010/07/key-provisions-of-az-law-blocked.html#comment-127659</link>
		<dc:creator>thierry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:51:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tammybruce.com/?p=36074#comment-127659</guid>
		<description>in my experience (with a large illegal workforce through the years) is that nothing triggers a federal crackdown on an illegal alien than if they determine they owe tax money. the government doesn&#039;t care who they kill or what child they rape or what citizen they screw out of a job or what citizen&#039;s SSN they steal- the federal government only seeks to enforce its own laws when they do not get their tax money. and when they do drop the hammer, they do nothing to the criminal who slinks off into the shadows after the company that employs them is forced to fire them.

the feds don&#039;t even generally care if a SSN is being used fraudulently- if you are an employer you find this out when the real owner of that number calls you screaming from another state. but they will bring the heat if they smell tax money gone unpaid. 

and for the record an employer is required by federal law to ask potential employees for their papers - and the types acceptable are listed along with a number to call to verify SSNs -to prove they are entitled to work in the usa. how is this legal when asking someone for the same information when suspected of a crime is supposedly forbidden? i&#039;m not a federal employee( or a peace officer) and i&#039;ve asked people for their papers dozens of times- and i was personally susceptible along with my company to fines and criminal charges if i falsified that information knowingly. it&#039;s absurd.

it seems to me that it&#039;s the federal government that is libel for all the crimes against american citizens committed by illegals- particularly if the criminals were turned into and then released by ICE. if possible this avenue should be pursued in earnest.

the theater of the absurd always leads to the circus of cruelty.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>in my experience (with a large illegal workforce through the years) is that nothing triggers a federal crackdown on an illegal alien than if they determine they owe tax money. the government doesn&#8217;t care who they kill or what child they rape or what citizen they screw out of a job or what citizen&#8217;s SSN they steal- the federal government only seeks to enforce its own laws when they do not get their tax money. and when they do drop the hammer, they do nothing to the criminal who slinks off into the shadows after the company that employs them is forced to fire them.</p>
<p>the feds don&#8217;t even generally care if a SSN is being used fraudulently- if you are an employer you find this out when the real owner of that number calls you screaming from another state. but they will bring the heat if they smell tax money gone unpaid. </p>
<p>and for the record an employer is required by federal law to ask potential employees for their papers &#8211; and the types acceptable are listed along with a number to call to verify SSNs -to prove they are entitled to work in the usa. how is this legal when asking someone for the same information when suspected of a crime is supposedly forbidden? i&#8217;m not a federal employee( or a peace officer) and i&#8217;ve asked people for their papers dozens of times- and i was personally susceptible along with my company to fines and criminal charges if i falsified that information knowingly. it&#8217;s absurd.</p>
<p>it seems to me that it&#8217;s the federal government that is libel for all the crimes against american citizens committed by illegals- particularly if the criminals were turned into and then released by ICE. if possible this avenue should be pursued in earnest.</p>
<p>the theater of the absurd always leads to the circus of cruelty.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Maynard</title>
		<link>http://tammybruce.com/2010/07/key-provisions-of-az-law-blocked.html#comment-127656</link>
		<dc:creator>Maynard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 07:57:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tammybruce.com/?p=36074#comment-127656</guid>
		<description>Your analysis doesn&#039;t make sense, at least not to my civilian mind. You acknowledge it&#039;s a crime to enter the U.S. illegally. So that says anyone that entered illegally (as opposed to someone who crossed over legally and then overstayed, which would be another scenario) is a criminal. If they arrest you for robbing a bank, you can&#039;t get off by saying that you robbed the bank yesterday, but you&#039;re not robbing a bank right now. Someone who is found in this country without having registered his entry has committed a crime. This should be prosecutable unless you want to allege it&#039;s beyond the statute of limitations. What am I missing?

Elsewhere you say that if you&#039;re a legal alien, then you must prove your legal status under penalty of law. However, if you&#039;re an illegal alien, there is no penalty of law for not being able to prove your legal status, nor is there any penalty of law for being illegal. If that&#039;s true, then the law you describe serves no other purpose than to harass legal aliens. A scenario that pointless wouldn&#039;t make any sense. I&#039;m not saying it isn&#039;t so, but what you&#039;re describing is insane.

Again, I&#039;m a civilian, and I expect things to make sense in a commonsense kind of way. Maybe I&#039;m unreasonable in this, but I don&#039;t think I&#039;m being unreasonable in expecting to live in a world I&#039;m capable of understanding, or at least I should be able to understand the rules of my own country. This is crazy stuff going on. When the nice officer stops me, I&#039;ve got to prove I&#039;m a licensed driver, and that my car is registered and insured. I&#039;ve got to identify myself to my bank, and I&#039;ve got to pay my taxes. I have every reason to believe I&#039;ll get stomped hard by my government if I don&#039;t do these things. Likewise, when I&#039;ve been abroad, I keep my papers on my person at all times. I&#039;m happy to carry my share of the burden and I&#039;m not complaining, except when I get the feeling I&#039;m being played for a fool. Why do we have two sets of rules, one for people that play by the rules and one for people that break the rules? Am I naive in saying the American ideal is equal protection under the law?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Your analysis doesn&#8217;t make sense, at least not to my civilian mind. You acknowledge it&#8217;s a crime to enter the U.S. illegally. So that says anyone that entered illegally (as opposed to someone who crossed over legally and then overstayed, which would be another scenario) is a criminal. If they arrest you for robbing a bank, you can&#8217;t get off by saying that you robbed the bank yesterday, but you&#8217;re not robbing a bank right now. Someone who is found in this country without having registered his entry has committed a crime. This should be prosecutable unless you want to allege it&#8217;s beyond the statute of limitations. What am I missing?</p>
<p>Elsewhere you say that if you&#8217;re a legal alien, then you must prove your legal status under penalty of law. However, if you&#8217;re an illegal alien, there is no penalty of law for not being able to prove your legal status, nor is there any penalty of law for being illegal. If that&#8217;s true, then the law you describe serves no other purpose than to harass legal aliens. A scenario that pointless wouldn&#8217;t make any sense. I&#8217;m not saying it isn&#8217;t so, but what you&#8217;re describing is insane.</p>
<p>Again, I&#8217;m a civilian, and I expect things to make sense in a commonsense kind of way. Maybe I&#8217;m unreasonable in this, but I don&#8217;t think I&#8217;m being unreasonable in expecting to live in a world I&#8217;m capable of understanding, or at least I should be able to understand the rules of my own country. This is crazy stuff going on. When the nice officer stops me, I&#8217;ve got to prove I&#8217;m a licensed driver, and that my car is registered and insured. I&#8217;ve got to identify myself to my bank, and I&#8217;ve got to pay my taxes. I have every reason to believe I&#8217;ll get stomped hard by my government if I don&#8217;t do these things. Likewise, when I&#8217;ve been abroad, I keep my papers on my person at all times. I&#8217;m happy to carry my share of the burden and I&#8217;m not complaining, except when I get the feeling I&#8217;m being played for a fool. Why do we have two sets of rules, one for people that play by the rules and one for people that break the rules? Am I naive in saying the American ideal is equal protection under the law?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: aardvark</title>
		<link>http://tammybruce.com/2010/07/key-provisions-of-az-law-blocked.html#comment-127655</link>
		<dc:creator>aardvark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 05:25:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tammybruce.com/?p=36074#comment-127655</guid>
		<description>You got it, Laura - google Cloward-Piven. It&#039;s the strategy of collapsing the government by making everyone completely dependent on it for everything. Of course, the government cannot possibly stand the overwhelming burden, and will entirely collapse. The theory is that then the radicals (Marxists, etc.) can come in at that point and completely re-make society in the fashion they choose because EVERYONE will be helpless -- or begging them to &quot;do something!&quot;

As to the idea of not showing proof of health care coverage (which I assume you weren&#039;t 100% serious about), there&#039;s a biiiig problem. Unlike the low level penalties usually cited for non-compliance with the census ($100) which would cost the government more than it would be worth to pursue, the DeathCare Bill had provisions allowing the IRS direct access to your bank accounts. I imagine the gov&#039;t. would LOVE to snag a hefty chunk from every protester&#039;s accounts. I also am thinking the penalties will escalate rapidly. 

We need to VOTE THE BA****** OUT and reverse it all!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You got it, Laura &#8211; google Cloward-Piven. It&#8217;s the strategy of collapsing the government by making everyone completely dependent on it for everything. Of course, the government cannot possibly stand the overwhelming burden, and will entirely collapse. The theory is that then the radicals (Marxists, etc.) can come in at that point and completely re-make society in the fashion they choose because EVERYONE will be helpless &#8212; or begging them to &#8220;do something!&#8221;</p>
<p>As to the idea of not showing proof of health care coverage (which I assume you weren&#8217;t 100% serious about), there&#8217;s a biiiig problem. Unlike the low level penalties usually cited for non-compliance with the census ($100) which would cost the government more than it would be worth to pursue, the DeathCare Bill had provisions allowing the IRS direct access to your bank accounts. I imagine the gov&#8217;t. would LOVE to snag a hefty chunk from every protester&#8217;s accounts. I also am thinking the penalties will escalate rapidly. </p>
<p>We need to VOTE THE BA****** OUT and reverse it all!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chuck</title>
		<link>http://tammybruce.com/2010/07/key-provisions-of-az-law-blocked.html#comment-127654</link>
		<dc:creator>Chuck</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 04:29:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tammybruce.com/?p=36074#comment-127654</guid>
		<description>The judge struck down the provision that would have granted AZ the right to check the immigration status even of people already under arrest for some other crime. That to me, is mind boggling. No matter if a person has been arrested 10,000 times, they cannot ask for immigration status? The argument about &quot;protecting legal citizens&quot; is specious and insane. Further, since it is not against a law for an illegal alien to apply for a job, wait for the sure next step: a legal challenge to the employment-verification system (E-Verify), under some crazy reason, like &quot;since illegals can apply for a job, they have the &lt;b&gt;right&lt;/b&gt; to obtain one, therefore, the system is against the law&quot; or something like that.

Liberals, illegal aliens, and immigration ambulance-chasers are celebrating now. They don&#039;t have idea of what will be coming in November, and I hope it will be catastrophic for them. I can&#039;t hardly wait.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The judge struck down the provision that would have granted AZ the right to check the immigration status even of people already under arrest for some other crime. That to me, is mind boggling. No matter if a person has been arrested 10,000 times, they cannot ask for immigration status? The argument about &#8220;protecting legal citizens&#8221; is specious and insane. Further, since it is not against a law for an illegal alien to apply for a job, wait for the sure next step: a legal challenge to the employment-verification system (E-Verify), under some crazy reason, like &#8220;since illegals can apply for a job, they have the <b>right</b> to obtain one, therefore, the system is against the law&#8221; or something like that.</p>
<p>Liberals, illegal aliens, and immigration ambulance-chasers are celebrating now. They don&#8217;t have idea of what will be coming in November, and I hope it will be catastrophic for them. I can&#8217;t hardly wait.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

