Coldheartedtruth

Judge Blocks Parts of Arizona Immigration Law

The overall law will still take effect Thursday, but without the provisions that angered opponents - including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.

The judge also put on hold parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places.

Let's be clear here folks. It's illegal for an undocumented worker to work. It's illegal to hire an undocumented worker. It's illegal for an undocumented worker to even just "be here". Yet a judge declares that a law preventing them from soliciting employment in public places is somehow unconstitutional?

It's a little like saying that it is illegal to pay a woman for sex. It's illegal for a woman to take money for sex. But a law that outlaws public solicitation of such a transaction would have to be (by the same logic)... unconstitutional. It boggles the mind.

Now I understand that the argument being made by the critics of this law is that it would end up with racial profiling and that state efforts would interfere with federal efforts. But the law was clear that the immigration status could "only" be checked when the police are enforcing other laws. For a "federal" judge to step in and tell local police that they cannot ask for identification when they make a traffic stop or are making some other routine police response is nothing short of asinine. (Especially since carrying proof of legal status is required by federal law for legal aliens) Asking for identification has been the first thing cops do in almost every situation. To take that away does nothing more that "protect" criminals in this situation as it makes the police's job harder. Why?

Secondly, I would understand how one might argue that local police enforcing immigration laws might interfere with federal enforcement. But the problem here lies in the simple fact that this law was passed because there IS NO FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT going on. There simply is not any Federal enforcement to interfere with. If there was such federal enforcement this law would be entirely unnecessary.

Lastly, the judge made the justification of her ruling on the basis of protecting the citizens of Arizona. She claims that there is a substantial likelihood that police would "wrongly" arrest legal citizens and create an undo (and extraordinary) burden on them. Really? Seems that the very citizens she claims will be burdened disagree with her, as this law is about as popular as free money in Arizona.

Look... this was a ruling in search of a legal justification. It cannot pass the common sense test for anyone with an IQ over 75.

So two beggers are having a discussion. One says he had raised about $40.00 that day begging on the street corner. The other says he has raised well over $500 that same day.

The unsuccessful begger asks... "how do you do it"?

The successful begger asks to see the other begger's sign which reads:

"War Vet, Homeless, Appreciate any help"

Well that's your problem says the successful begger... look at my sign:

"Give me $10 and I will leave the country"

• Does anyone actually care about the Afghan war anymore?
• Lindsey Lohan is a whittle baby!
• I saw a FB ad asking if people thought Sarah Palin could ever be President... and I didn't discount it off hand.
• Al Gore is a fat head.
• Why do I care that Adrian Peterson will be there for the first day of camp? Shouldn't he be there? Isn't that his job?
• We went from a President who sounded stupid even if he was saying something fairly intelligent... to a President who sounds intelligent even while saying somthing really stupid.
• Angelina Jolie is the new Tom Cruise.
• Nancy Pelosi being 70 years old is an advertisement for a mandatory retirement age.

For some time now I have argued that one of the major problems with the Obama administration is their hard-line devotion to theoretical Keynesian economic policies at the expense of any common sense ability to simply react to the conditions put out in front of them. I have argued that the over-reliance of economic advisers from within the academic world has left them with little understanding of how the private sector "actually" works, and more importantly how the real job creators in the private sector actually think.

Specifically I have argued that those who hold the purse-strings in the private industry simply do not believe that what the Administration is doing is good for their long term outlook:

What matters (and really the only thing that matters) is the opinions of those people who actually hold the purse strings of the private sector. If they are not convinced that more government spending is the key to long term economic growth then they will not invest in their business or in new hiring....

As frustrating as it may be for some of these people, the government cannot demand that private industry agree with them on how best to run an economy, nor can they demand that private industry invest capital just because chapter 4 of "Keynesian Economics for Dummies" says that they should.

Recently I have been reading more and more people suggesting anything from "exactly" the same thing to something pretty darn similar. For instance... this is a quote from a recent NYPost article:

Part of the problem was a misplaced faith in Keynesian economics -- that is, in the discredited notion that politicians can borrow money from the economy's right pocket and increase prosperity by dumping money in the economy's left pocket.

But the bigger stumbling block is the folks in the White House seem to have no clue how the real-world economy works. Critics have noted that the Obama Cabinet sets the record for the lowest-ever level of private-sector experience. That doesn't necessarily mean people who don't understand how and why jobs are created -- but that seems to be the case with this administration.

So not only does this author agree with my root cause problem... but also with where this is going:

The problem is not a lack of capital. Businesses have plenty of extra cash -- with the Federal Reserve reporting this month, for example, that nonfinancial firms are sitting on $1.8 trillion, about a quarter more cash-on-hand than when the recession started.

The key issue is whether companies have a reason to invest. In other words, if they start spending money and hiring workers, will they make money?

Unfortunately, almost everything Washington's done the last 18 months has sent the opposite message.

I will say that more and more economists are starting to agree on the certain obvious things. Even Keynesian cultist Paul Krugman points out that the biggest problem is that the private sector is holding onto their capital, rather than spending it. The difference is that he refuses to accept the possibility that they are actually holding onto it based on the very reasons that the private sector leaders "say" they are holding onto it. He basically argues (without proof) that those who do say this are not representative of the private sector at large and that the solution still lies with (yes, you guessed it) an even more aggressive dose of Keynesian economic federal spending stimulus.

The bottom line here folks is simple. The argument that the Obama administration is incapable of creating jobs is moving from opinion to fact. Economic theory, opinion pieces in the NY Times, and "recovery summer speeches" do not change reality. The same people who want you to believe their charts, projections, and theories now are the same ones who promised that unemployment would never go over 8% if Obama was given his $800 billion plus stimulus package. Unfortunately these people simply do not appear to have a clue at how to reconcile the textbooks that they rely on with the real world they live in.