Appeals court upholds Arizona immigration law

AP via SFGate ^ | 9/17/8 | JACQUES BILLEAUD, Associated Press Writer

[SmithL]

From the 9th??????

[sinanju]

(staggers, clutches chest) “This is it, Alice! This is the big one! I’m coming to see you, Alice!”

[mancini]

Another win for Joe and Andrew! Lord, please let us keep them.

[sinanju]

But seriously folks, we should not be surprised. It is the liberal, activist jurists who are the most likely to be swayed by prevailing winds.

Who can say? Maybe they’ve been feeling some actual heat recently?

[sinanju]

“While it upheld the law, a three-judge panel of the court left the door open for other challenges, saying no one has been accused of violating the law since it took effect nine months ago.”

_______________________________________________________________________

That may be the difference, the law has been in effect nine months already, and the sky has not fallen.

[EEDUDE]

“and the sky has not fallen”

And it won’t fall. What WILL happen is that unemployment lines will diminish and more Americans will be employed.

I am convinced that going after employers is the right way to attack this problem. As far a E-Verify is concerned, it’s a very quick and simple matter to verify SS# matches the name.

The only people that are objecting to this are illegal aliens and those that would unlawfully employ them.

[EEDUDE]

In addition, I might state that Indiana started checking that names and SS numbers match on drivers licenses. Bravo!

My wife got a letter stating that she had 30 days to rectify a mismatch on hers before it was suspended. She had not changed her last name since we were married.

It’s now more of a pain to get a drivers license here, but at least it prevents people from obtaining a fraudulent drivers license which can then be used to construct a whole false identity.

It’s not whether we have the means of identifying these people or not. It’s a question of political will.

[gubamyster]

ping

[sinanju]

I had not known previously that states are barred from assessing criminal or civil penalties on employers for hiring illegals but are able to yank their business licenses.

[abigailsmybaby]

No kidding. Hell must truly be freezing over today.

[WestwardHo]

This law is a wonderful thing. We live near Prescott, AZ. As soon as this law was passed the illegals disapeared from the city park, and it was safe for regular people. The car wash businesses are now employing young college students. You know longer see groups of men hanging out on empty lots, etc. The overnight, dramatic change is amazing.

[Apple Blossom]

ping

[Apple Blossom]

ping

[Americanwolfsbrother]

We will have to wait and see what the 9th circuit court will do when Thomas finally uses this law against an employer. No employers have been charged or prosecuted under this law yet as they were waiting for the 9th to rule and I promise you as soon as an employer is charged under this law it will be rocket right up to the 9th again, then they will try to gut the law. There has been a small benefit in some IAs self deporting themselves but it has been minimal. The downturn in the economy has had more to due with the decreases in IAs throughout the state than the law has.AWB

[Checkers]

Good news.

Sad news that McCain will undo all of it...

[Americanwolfsbrother]

I don't know that McCain will undo it. He got slapped hard and I mean very hard in 2006 and 2007 and I think he learned his lesson. I have talked to Senator McCain regarding his previous stance (i.e. amnesty) and while I don't expect him to do a 180 and do everything we want I do think blanket amnesty is off the table and securing the border(s) will come first. By the way if anyone thinks the fence being built south of here is going to secure the border you are sadly mistaken.AWB

[Checkers]

“I have talked to Senator McCain regarding his previous stance (i.e. amnesty)...”

I would love to hear the details of that conversation if you are free to talk about it...

[Lancey Howard]

The 9th? Huh.

[Americanwolfsbrother]

In 2005 I sent several letters to the Senator demanding he help us secure the border (at the time I was working with the Minutemen). Finally I received a letter from his office telling me in not so many words to leave him alone. Shortly after he introduced the Kennedy-McCain bill and really got blasted. About 3 months after he withdrew the bill and said he had heard us I met him in Phoenix through Don Goldwater. It was a 5 minute or less conversation where he acknowledged that things had to change and he realized citizens wanted the border secured first and that blanket amnesty would not be accepted.

It was not so much his words as his look that gave me the immediate impression that he knew he would have to change his tune. He mentioned opening up the work visa process to make more visas available and make the process easier for those applying. His chief concern was enforcing expired visas and how local government would work with the federal government to assist in this (he admitted that the feds could not do the job alone). He also was concerned how we would secure the border as he realized the fence alone would not do the job. He did admit that additional BP on the border would supplement the fence and grudgingly admitted that once we had a handle on the border that the increase in BP would be temporary (3-5 years) until people form south of the border got the idea and stopped trying to come across.AWB

[Checkers]

Thanks for the quick response!

Very interesting post.

My fear is that regardless of what McCain “really” wants, he will sign whatever gets out of Congress.

(I noticed during one of the debates when Thompson used the phrase “Attrition Through Enforcement”, McCain acted as though he had never heard of the concept.)

You sound like an Arizonan. Let me ask you: Does McCain keep his campaign promises?