NASA's New Mission?

[Brett327]

Even if this law sticks there is no real way to enforce it. Suddenly illegals who are witnesses to crimes will not come forward in fear of being deported... So now you make illegals fear the police, who do they turn to for protection?

They (illegals) already fear the authorities - nothing changes. What about all the other criminals who already don't come forward as witnesses of crime because they fear the police? This is a specious argument.

Brett

 

[Swanee]

As if the illegal aliens were lining up to testify in the first place? "Hey, I'm not here legally and shouldn't even be talking to you, but so-and-so just robbed the Quicky-Mart and I'd like to testify against him?" I mean, how often does that really happen? Something tells me not too much...

Not how it works....

Do you guys know anyone who lives in Arizona? Do you KNOW any Judges in Phoenix who are trying to figure out how to train their LEOs on how to enforce this law? Do you know any LEOs in AZ that see this law as a serious detriment to how they do business? I do.

Illegals do more than live in ghettos and pick fruit. Many of them are the product of the HUMAN and DRUG Trafficking rings that exist and have created much of the problems that have set this proposed law into motion. They would be here legally, but they don't have access to the ways and means to make it so. People illegally crossed the Berlin Wall for a better life. These people may not be running from an oppressive government. They are most concerned with raising their children in a society that has more to offer than a life of either poverty or drug running......

So how do we take those rings down? With witnesses from inside those rings (who are here illegally) They see shit just like Johnny Smith sees shit, except their name is Jose Sanchez. These are issues and facts. To think that this new law is a good thing is to think that knee jerk reactions to a problem without fully knowing WTF if going on is a good idea.

Or maybe people just get short sighted in their old age! :icon_wink

Don't you watch TV?
"We're not INS, Mrs. Gutierrez. We only want to know who you saw running out of the cheese factory with the bloody crowbar."

If it happens on TV, it must happen in real life, right?

It does happen; most likely much more often than you think.

 

[Flash]

By saying this you are implying that any city/county/state law enforcement officer should ignore people breaking any federal law that does not have a corresponding state law.

I, on the other hand, believe it is their responsibility to enforce all laws with the territorial bounds of the jurisdiction regardless of origin. Whether it's murder, rape, violating civil rights or apprehending those in the country in violation of the federal laws. All are laws and all should be enforced with the associated violators arrested.

No, what I am saying is that the state law intrudes on federal authority, not that local police can't help enforce federal law. There is a federal program already in place for local law enforcement officers to help the feds enforce immigration laws, but only to enforce federal law. I have no issues with that, seems to work well enough. It is the state's intrusion on federal authority and some of the possible side effects from it that I disagree with.

The courts have upheld the rights of state and local police to arrest illegals before. SB1070 doesn't do as much as most people who are against it think--probably because most people who are against it haven't read it and only got their information about it from the very vocal minority that strongly opposes it.

A very pertinent case.

The more I hear people complain about SB1070, the more I think it has less to do with any of the supposed issues people have with the law, and more to do with people not wanting illegal immigrants deported.

The courts have upheld the authority of state and local police to help enforce federal immigration laws. The legal issue with this one is that this is a state law on what is a federal matter. That is a very real issue and not a 'supposed' one.

That's not true - if it were, I don't think the case would be particularly compelling.

First of all, the notion that the Supremacy Clause prevents states from passing laws that deal with issues already dealt with by the federal government is flatly wrong. The clause merely (and logically) states that laws enacted by the states (etc) cannot conflict with the US Constitution or federal law........That is, of course, in regards to illegality as such. As the DOJ notes, the AZ law does create "a series of state immigration crimes." This the DOJ objects to, and does claim here that the federal government has a "constitutionally reserved" right to handle immigration, although I was unable to find a believable justification for that claim.

NONETHELESS, the DOJ does have a strong case to make, if you read their brief.

.....The main crux of the argument is that the AZ law overreaches....

DOJ is making the argument that the AZ law will undermine federal immigration policy. As absurd as that may sound, the basic argument is that INS and ICE's limited resources will be excessively drawn to cater to minor immigration problems exposed by the AZ law at the expense of higher priority (national security) cases and the government's intended policy on immigration (the quality of that policy not being particularly relevant).

The main point still remains, that the state is intruding on what is solely a federal area of the law. While you may not buy it there are others that may, the DOJ only needs to convince 5 of them.

The liberals/'progressives' on this website are sooooo ... so, so, so transparent. And so's their agenda. Do 'they' really think the rest of us 'don't get it' ... ???

I'm just glad they're not in any unit that I'm in ... or ever served in.

Okay, somewhat cryptic rambling again. What is supposedly "their agenda"? You gonna keep it a secret or share it with the masses? You know, on second thought, I could care less.

As for being glad for not being in any unit 'they' are in, predictable and pretty pathetic, too bad you won't have the privilege.

 

[jtmedli]

To think that this new law is a good thing is to think that knee jerk reactions to a problem without fully knowing WTF if going on is a good idea.

Or maybe people just get short sighted in their old age! :icon_wink

It does happen; most likely much more often than you think.

Like I said, the law wasn't passed for any other reason than to piss off the administration to the point that they would do something about it. Instead of doing anything about it that would make any iota of a difference, Obama chose to file a lawsuit so he would look good politically. IMHO he would've been much better off just sucking it up and sending the troops down there to help them out.

 

[CAMike]

This thread concerning NASA and it's reaching out to the Muslim world was apparently just a misunderstanding. NASA has been spoken to by the White House.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/07/12/national/w113120D48.DTL&tsp=1

 

[helolumpy]

Fox news tells it a bit differently (I know it all biased but still...)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/12/white-house-muslim-outreach-task-nasa/

From article:
"Bolden, though, said last month in the interview that it was President Obama who gave him that task. He made a similar claim in February."

"The White House also backed up Bolden last week when his remarks first stirred controversy."

"But Gibbs on Monday appeared to deny that Bolden was asked to focus on Muslim outreach at all. Asked whether Bolden misspoke, Gibbs said: "I think so."

So which is it; did he get the tasking or not????

 

[jmcquate]

This thread concerning NASA and it's reaching out to the Muslim world was apparently just a misunderstanding. NASA has been spoken to by the White House.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/07/12/national/w113120D48.DTL&tsp=1

That Obama bus has quite a body count.

 

[A4sForever]

Fox news tells it a bit differently (I know it all biased but still...)....

O.K. ... let's get this 'right' (no pun) once and for all:

There's NO NEED to keep 'apologizing' for Fox News ... the few leftie's on this website have 'intimidated' waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyy too many of you -- they have no 'audience', save for themselves -- and, as usual, they appear in sight & sound all out of proportion of their numbers, influence, or impact. Or reality ...

I say: THANK GOD for 'Fox News' ... and while it's not 'perfect' (will those of you who ARE 'perfect' please raise your 'right' (no pun) hand .... ?????) .... but: w/out 'em ... we'd only be getting 10% of the 'story' from the 90% left-wing MSM story.

We don't need to 'apologize' for what we know (in spite of the shortcomings of the messengers .... ) is 'right' (again ... *pant*pant* ... no pun).

Believe it.

Serenity now ... it's O.K. ... it's O.K. ... it's O.K. ... serenity now.