Before I go any further, let me say that just about everything O does makes me want to smack him in the knee with a rusty hammer. (Figuratively speaking. FBI, I have NO PLANS to do anything physical! LOL!)
Now, as to the matter at hand, this seems to be the ‘graph in question:
“A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world. The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined.”
Does the inclusion of this statement actually give the U.N. jurisdiction of some kind? Because it sounds more informational to me, sort of an “OMG, we suck so bad,” as opposed to, “We suck so bad, please come fix us!”
My question, to anyone who understands international law and who has the patience to wade through this report to the U.N.:
Does this report actually give some sort of jurisdiction to the U.N. over the Arizona issue, or is it purely informational to the U.N.?
see post 22...
From reading the story, it seemed to me that Barry was advising the UN that Arizona’a behavior is so foul, they need to investigate and take what action they deem necessary, hence the paragraphs about what actions they can take, and the review every four years, etc. Nothing in the story says what authority they have, but in reality, it is whatever authority we or Barry gives them.