steeler wrote: 
Heard it on NPR yesterday too. But that's all it's doing, waning, not down dramatically, waning. Less jobs to cross the border for = waning, not "the issue is fixed"...come an economic recovery, which we all know is just around the corner the problem will resurface.

 kurtster wrote: 
Legalize it.I agree Obama is not handling our relationship with Mexico and the drug war any better than the rest of em.

 sirdroseph wrote: 

OK, screw the immigration issue then.  We have a full tilt flippin war on the border that wasn't happenning before 2009.

 kurtster wrote: 

What are you talking about?

Talk about building a fence along the border between Mexico and the U.S. surfaced well before Obama took office.

See, for example:

House Resolution 6061 (H.R. 6061), "Secure Fence Act of 2006", was introduced on September 13, 2006. It passed through the U.S. House of Representatives on September 14, 2006 with a vote of 283–138.

 sirdroseph wrote: 

No terrorism, either.  And no al-Queda, war in Iraq, war in Afghanistan, strife in Pakistan. All that amped up when Obama took office. Bin Laden did not exist as a threat until he was taken out under Obama's watch.  Wait . . . that last one isn't coming out the way it should.    

 kurtster wrote: 
Yep, no one has ever talked about illegal immigration before January 2009. That was the first time I ever heard of anyone entering this country illegally.

 steeler wrote: 
What kind of immigration is waning from Mexico ?  Legal or illegal ?

Before Obama, there wasn't much shooting and open war on the border.  States were not calling for federal troops at the borders before Obama, to my knowledge.  US law enforcement officers were not getting killed with weapons sold by the US governent to Mexican war lords before Obama.

We didn't have an American president talking about moats and alligators for border protection before Obama.

 steeler wrote: 
There was no illegal immigration before Obama; nor was there crime or dwarf tossing.

 oldslabsides wrote: 

Yep, that's the one.

Sorry, I did not scroll down even a tad. I thought I spotted in earlier in here, but then forgot about it.

 steeler wrote: 

I gotta wonder why I bother posting sometimes.

 kurtster wrote: 

There was little illegal immigration before Obama?

I just read a story in the Washington Post the other day about how the immigration from Mexico is waning.  

 aflanigan wrote: 
Did they sneak in by getting off the boat somewhere else before it docked in SF ?  No they showed up and tried to enter the old fashioned way, publicly and subject to the rules in force at the time.  Their entranced was challenged and they had their days in court.  Nothing sneaky or underhanded about how they tried to enter the country.  Yes, the California law was not a good one and it went all the way to the SCOTUS, as it should.

Arizona and the other states mirror federal law in that they are trying to enforce federal laws that are purposely not being enforced by Obama.  They are not saying what the criteria is for being here legally as was California in your example.  These states are simply determining whether or not people are here with proper federal documents and if not, capture and turn them over to the INS.  If Obama was properly performing his Constitutionally designated duties we would not have this Constitutional crisis.  This Constitutional scholar has no clue as we have seen in his outlandish statements regarding the power and duties of the SCOTUS in his attempts to bully the court into keeping the ACA intact.

 aflanigan wrote:
 
Aye, there's the rub. The feds have completely abdicated their responsibility, which is why we're in this mess. The border states are trying to do something, ANYTHING, about illegal immigration, since the federal government has just kicked it around. I don't agree with the states' actions, but I understand their frustration.

 kurtster wrote: 

Not according to the guy who tried to keep them out using the California law.

Setting immigration policy is, and should be, the federal government's job.  Arizona has no business setting themselves up to do it.

The rate of Mexican immigration to the US has stalled or maybe even gone into reverse, an analysis shows, ending a four-decade-long trend.

 aflanigan wrote: 
Nice story an all.  But it is about people who tried to enter legally into this country.

Arizona and the other states are about people who are entering illegally.  People who sneak in under the cover of darkness violating our laws and sovereignty in the process do not belong here and have no rights.  The difference is lost on most all people who beleve that being against illegal immigration is a code word for being against immigration of any kind.  That is simply not the case.  Its the biggest bunch of straw and bs that has ever been launched to defend open borders and Sanctuary Cities.  Two wrongs do not make a right and the ends do not justify the means.

California has a strange history in terms of people migrating to the Golden State.  Why just as recently as the Dust Bowl and the Great Depression, California had armed militias at its borders to keep out the Okies trying to escape the Dust Bowl.  They were coming into the state without work lined up and no means to support themselves.  Of Mice and Men, I believe, is a story about this.

But as long as people try to equate illegal immigration as legal and right, I will stand to point out the difference.  The left has tried to get rid of the term illegal immigrants and replace it with the newly politically correct term undocumented immigrants in an effort to change the spin.  Bullpuckey.

There is nothing wrong with legal immigration and there are rules for a reason.  To say that there is no such thing as illegal immigration which is what you ( I assume, though please correct me if I am wrong ) and the supporters of open borders and Sanctuary Cities claim is just plain wrong.

I am always willing to discuss this topic.

The Case of the 22 Lewd Chinese Women

A crazy 19th-century case shows how the Supreme Court should deal with Arizona’s immigration law.