world

Judge blocks parts of Arizona immigration law

54 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

54 Comments
Login to comment

Well, I have to admit that I am extremely happy about Judge Bolton's decision. She basically took out all the parts of the law that were objectionable to me. It's not over yet but I feel good today.

And before I forget; "I told you so" just doesn't seem to cut it...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama ratchets up the class/race war. This is the most destructive man ever to occupy the White House.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@MisterCreosote: The judge made the decision according US laws, not Obama. There were several different lawsuits being heard at the same time and for example, two of the lawsuits are from AZ police officers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think Arizona KNEW it was going to be shot down, and I have a feeling this law was merely created to push the government to do something about illegal immigration. This law sends a message that states WILL take matters into their own hands if nothing is done.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Without illegal immigrants the U.S economy would be in more dire straights than it is currently.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton will now have to decide a question as old as the nation itself: Does federal law trump state law? She indicated in her ruling that the federal government’s case has a good chance at succeeding.

Does federal law trump state law-- Judge Susan Bolton think so....

Encore un moment, monsieur....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Without illegal immigrants the U.S. economy would be in more dire straights than it is currently"

Without a doubt, one of the most ill-informed posts ever. Illegal immigrants have just about bankrupted California.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge, when was the last time you picked a head of lettuce, hosed down a kitchen floor or slaughtered a steer? How many other American citizens with whom you have a personal acquaintance perform such chores?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

FYI, Japanese immigration law is much tougher than this Arizona Law. However, I didn't hear any complain or debate about it in Japan. Let's hope there will be some discussion in Japan about the excessive powers of Japanese police and calls for a more relaxed immigration policy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Arizonans should be able to decide what is best for Arizona.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge, when was the last time you picked a head of lettuce, hosed down a kitchen floor or slaughtered a steer? How many other American citizens with whom you have a personal acquaintance perform such chores?

When was the last time you walked into a hospital, delivered a baby, then walked out without paying a dime while at the same time paying no income taxes?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“I felt good inside” said the 32-year-old illegal immigrant, who came here six years ago from Sonora, Mexico, and supports his wife and three children. “Now there’s a way to stay here with less problems.”

So this guy is basically saying that it is fine for him to just break a law while I have had to jump through the whole immigration process for the wife to be a legal resident.

The real proble with this judge's ruling is that she just basically threw out the decision made by the elected representatives of AZ. Now if you don't like a law, just protest it and get an activist judge to throw it out.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Does federal law trump state law-- Judge Susan Bolton think so....

So does the U.S. Constitution...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I never understood this. How does any other country in the world survive without illegal immigrants? lol

The US might as well go and annex Mexico. Make them all legal.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We will now be discussing which part should have been blocked and which part should not have been but I think the real question is whether this law was necessary in the first place. According to the this article, I am not sure it was..

Are we really sure it is not fearmongering from politicians?

US border violence: Myth or reality?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10779151

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I didn't hear any complain or debate about it in Japan. Let's hope there will be some discussion in Japan about the excessive powers of Japanese police and calls for a more relaxed immigration policy.

What for, most of the folks commenting against Arizona are not even Japanese (no hypocrisy here, trust me)... they're just white libs flaming threads like this....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think the right wing is corrupted by people who just don't like immigrants of any kind, legal or illegal, and the left wing is corrupted by people don't understand that immigration control should be the Federal government's responsibility, but that the Federal government has, basically, no policy that it consistently enforces because it's politically difficult to do so. The danger to Arizona residents is, however, real, and something must be done at the Federal level to protect them.

I hope that the sane people from both sides will get together, listen to each other and create a workable and fair solution. I'm not all that optimistic at this point, but then, there are still one or two sane people left in the world, so who knows?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Can't say I didn't warn ya guys. The federal government protects its own: a federal judge in favor of the federal government. Regardless of which party controls the administration, the fed govt would not like to cede powers it traditionally owns. This can likely reach the 3rd branch of government, the US Supreme Court - the one equal in authority to the fed govt. The fed govt has a good case, though ya never know with the US Supreme Court since SCOTUS can decide on its own, instead of based on established precedence like the lower courts do.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

people don't understand that immigration control should be the Federal government's responsibility, but that the Federal government has, basically, no policy that it consistently enforces because it's politically difficult to do so.

I think we all understand that but we don't think that this particular law is the way to go.

The danger to Arizona residents is, however, real,

What danger are you referring to?

I think that there is a lot of disinformation going on about the actual crime rate in AZ. If anyone is interested, here is a very good news clip from KPHO. They actually do their job and ask some pointed questions. They also follow the money in a sort of way and talk about the economical impact of the law so far. Very good information for those interested.

http://www.kpho.com/iteam/24362212/detail.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The belief that the crime rate is dropping is being debated: http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2010/06/on-the-border.html

I don't live there, but people I know who do, and who don't have any axe to grind with immigrants, perceive a problem with violence. Certainly fear could cloud perception, but there seems to be more to it. As usual, everyone is claiming opposite truths (crime is up/crime is down), and I can't confirm any of this for certain personally.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think most people expected AZ to lose. We were just waiting to see what is going to happen next....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Fair enough Farmboy, have a look at the link to KPHO. It talks about it some.

As for perception, you are quite correct. Many of my Japanese friends still think that non-Japanese are the cause of a high percentage of crimes in Japan. As we all know, they get that mostly from the media and the police posters in certain prefectures (not to mention certain politicians).

Cheers

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Beel - I haven't picked any heads of lettuce, but I've picked my share of other vegetables and fruits, as well as bundling hay and other back-breaking farm work.

I've never hosed down a kitchen floor, but I've mopped plenty of 'em.

I've never slaughtered a steer, but I once worked briefly at a meat packing plant, operating the grinders that make sausages.

My point: Americans do this kind of work. Not only illegal immigrants.

SuperLib at 4:07PM - Good one.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If anyone has read the opinion, it is idiotic. I mean that in the nicest way. Essentially what it boils down to, is this judge ruled that these provisions would interfere with the federal governments effectiveness in carrying out its job. So, the law which mirrors federal law is unconstitutional because it would impose a burden on the federal government, that the federal government isn't willing to have. Meaning, Arizona's law would interfere with the Federal governments lack of enforcement of their own law. Yeah, that little bit of stupidity is not going to stand on appeal.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In 2006 I met US Attorney Paul Perez at a 911 anniversary meeting held at Times Union Building in Jacksonville, Florid. The were having a seminar on terrorism. I went to this meeting with information on US government spying on Americans using Google,Microsoft and other companys. I stood up and gave information about this spying and then I asked if we were really being attacked by terrorist would we not close the borders first thing? Would we not put up a firewall? Even the government said that it would be easy for terrorist to come across the border. SO why? is this border open? Because the terrorist our us,the government and the illegals are used to destroy the working class people of the United States so they have no say in the government now heading into deep dictatorshipa and soon maybe martial law.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ah, illegal immigrants, the deflective gift that keeps on giving. Illegal immigrants are fueling America's drug problem(and who is buying the drugs?). Illegal immigrants are stealing American jobs(who's employing them and what jobs?). If Americans didn't buy drugs from or employ illegal immigrants there would be reason for them to come.

The biggest irony of the whole thing, is those that seem the strongest proponents Arizona immigration law, are also some loudest proponents for Capitalism.

Oh well, we know what kind of leaders get brought into power when illegal immigration is scapegoated (think Germany).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Arizona law was created to drive home the point that many boarder states have been trying to make. They get no aid from the Federal Government despite years of failed attempts to get their complaints heard. It just goes to show that the Feds won't do anything until somebody threatens their authority. As for this law interfering with Federal enforcement I pose the question, What enforcement? ICE can't do anything without a court order that takes forever and other immigration officials simply don't want to deal with it. The people of California wouldn't feel that this law was necessary if the laws already in existence were enforced. That is the failing of the Federal Government.

when was the last time you picked a head of lettuce, hosed down a kitchen floor or slaughtered a steer?

I don't know about Sarge but during college I did a lot of under the table work for less than min wage including two years working at a slaughterhouse, two seasons picking cherries, and a year and a half as a janitor working at the college I was attending.

The biggest irony of the whole thing, is those that seem the strongest proponents Arizona immigration law, are also some loudest proponents for Capitalism.

Most proponents of capitalism don't even know what capitalism is and neither do opponents of it. Fact of the matter is laissez faire capitalism has never existed anywhere at any time so one cannot say that it has succeeded or failed as many do. Also a true capitalist wouldn't hire an illegal worker because chances are that he/she will simply send most of that money back to Mexico, meaning that money has little chance of re-entering the U.S monetary system, which means people in the area will have less money to spend at your business. People who hire illegals lack the mental capacity to think beyond the idea that they're paying lower wages and should be punished for their stupidity if not for breaking the law.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Funny how those who oppose the law also favor legalizing pot and things like that. And they think countries don't have the right to protect their borders. But this article is about a state making a law to reinforce the federal law by allowing police to aid in the identification of illegals. It's the state helping the feds and the feds getting all uppity about it. And of course the ones who support legalization of criminal acts are all for it too. Maybe because it hits home in some way?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Also a true capitalist wouldn't hire an illegal worker because chances are that he/she will simply send most of that money back to Mexico, meaning that money has little chance of re-entering the U.S monetary system, which means people in the area will have less money to spend at your business.

That is assuming that employees would/can buy the product produced by employer. A true capitalist would also seek out a competitive advantage including lower wages. If an American loses a job to illegal immigrant, he should either increase his efficiency or reduce his wage to that of the labour supply equilibrium wage(most likely what the illegal immigrant is being paid) or both. A business/market should always be drivin to find the most efficent means of production, nationalism is hindrance to a fully efficent economic model, especially when the state starts to interfere with market.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What danger are you referring to?

The danger is what happens if the drug cartels do indeed become hostile in the US like they are in Mexico, I mean the city that borders El Paso has more people killed each year then all the people killed in Iraq for each of the past two years. The idea that one town/city in mexico that borders the USA has more people killed each year then Iraq does would suggest there is indeed a danger. These drug cartels are well armed and well supplied, there networks are in every single state of USA according to the federal government. The danger or the threat has always been is that they could flip a switch at any second and they would become a serious security threat in the USA. The only reason why the danger isn't seen as being real is because they have decided for now not to use violence in the US, but what happens if that changes?

Do you sort of understand the threat now?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And thus Arizona SB 1070, predictably, runs afoul of the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution. Honestly, I think Arizona SB 1070 was really more of a stunt to embarass Obama and the federal government into action rather than a serious attempt at border control. That and the ever-so-important pandering to the base.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Too bad the judge can't tell the feds to enforce their own laws. Then Arizona wouldn't have to.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Do you sort of understand the threat now?

As long as there is billions of dollars in drug money to had, do you think that they wouldn't find away to get around the law? How long has the war on drugs been waged for?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ha ha,

Stupid Arizona conservatives lose.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Noliving at 02:51 AM JST - 30th July. The danger is what happens if the drug cartels do indeed become hostile in the US like they are in Mexico, I mean the city that borders El Paso has more people killed each year then all the people killed in Iraq for each of the past two years. The idea that one town/city in mexico that borders the USA has more people killed each year then Iraq does would suggest there is indeed a danger.

Send me a link that states El Paso has more people killed than Iraq. El Paso has been and remains one of the safest cities in the nation despite the drug civil war just accross the border. So how can a murder not be reported? Aren't a lot of the murdered victim's bodies just found? That some murders might not be counted since they are outside the city limits, well the same thing applies to every city in the nation. Even if you include all of El Paso County, it would still be one of the safest in the nation. See, recently El Paso has decided to quote several magazines and articles proclaiming it is "The second safest large city in the United States", according to city crime ranking 2008 - 2009,

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Arizona law has popular support, but it opposed by the Obama administration. But, hey, the Obama administration knows what's best, right?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hi Noliving, what sfp330 says about ElPaso, a US town is right. Just a quick clarification here, when you say "more people killed each year 'then' all the people killed in Iraq", do you mean only American lives? Just wondering because I am pretty sure Iraqis are also people and I just want to make sure you are also including them in your total.

As a Canadian, I understand perfectly well about living near dangerous cities situated south of the border so you don't have to worry about my understanding of it. Instead of maybes, you could maybe talk about the growing crime rate in the state of Arizona, the multitudes of attacks on Americans by crazed gunmen from Mexico, the constant fear that people live in, the police not being able to deal with the existing crimes, the police screaming for more help, the economy down the drain because the violence is such that people don't want to go there anymore... But you can't, can you?

The police are able to deal with what's going on, people still visit the state, but it's down by ten percent at the moment mostly because of Brewer saying the states is "SO" dangerous... and when called out she just runs away without answering questions. The gunmen are pretty much all Americans, just google Shawna Forde and her minutemen for an example of crazed killers, you don't really need to look south to find crazy people with guns, you know.

My point is the law, the way it is written, does not work. By the way Noliving, MY interpretation of it was right and yours was wrong, I hope you realize that now. A judge said the same thing I told you earlier this month, when you kept saying, I don't know how else to say this but you're wrong, you're wrong. I was right.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I am a free market advocate, so I am in favor of open borders and free immigration. Conservatives are in favor of free market only when it suits them, but they are just basically utilitarians. Real libertarians are for individual freedoms, free market, open society.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What is wrong with borders being enforced? THAT is the question. Can anybody answer?

Countries have different governments. If Mexico was an American state, there would be no problem. The fact is that Mexicans and their supporters claim Mexican entitlement to work in the US. What are visas for? Why can't we all just move to the US and start working? Hey! Visas are a hassle.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sourpuss-- I think it's more the fact that this law could be and more than likely would be abused. For some people it's not about upholding the law, but rather "keeping tabs on the brown people".

That said, I have more sympathy for the immigrants who went through the complete and utter mess that is applying for citizenship, but that doesn't mean if you aren't a US citzen, you are automatically a criminal. I think the messy system could be fixed without resorting to these supposedly innocent "checks" they would be performing on anyone "suspected" of being in the country illegally. I'm all for everyone getting citizenship, but that law would only have exacerbated the tensions, in my opinion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If America is so evil why do all these Mexicans keep coming?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That is assuming that employees would/can buy the product produced by employer.

The employee wouldn't need to spend the money on anything the company produces. It's very doubtful that a worker at a yacht production facility will purchase the product he helps produce. But if he spends his money at a grocery store chain the money may climb up the ladder to the chain owner who may purchase a yacht. If that money is sent to another country the chances of it re-entering the employers client sphere is significantly diminished.

A true capitalist would also seek out a competitive advantage including lower wages.

Yes.

If an American loses a job to illegal immigrant, he should either increase his efficiency or reduce his wage to that of the labour supply equilibrium wage(most likely what the illegal immigrant is being paid) or both.

Yes, I've been an avid supporter of abolishing the minimum wage for a long time now. When you look for a job you're selling yourself to the employer and the way you make the sale is to offer the best work for the lowest price, if there were not minimum wage laws illegal workers wouldn't be a problem.

A business/market should always be drivin to find the most efficent means of production, nationalism is hindrance to a fully efficent economic model, especially when the state starts to interfere with market.

There's the problem. The most efficient means of production is not always the most profitable, the most profitable is the one that matches the consumer demand at equilibrium price in order to sustain economic profit. In most instances a company that produces at max efficiency creates more of a product than demand can keep up with which drives down the price and reduces profit. Efficiency is not the same as profitability.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Lawmakers Consider Ending Citizenship for Children of Illegal Immigrants @http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/29/lawmakers-consider-ending-citizenship-children-illegal-immigrants/

A couple of issues. The first is the role of the U.S. Constitution. The second is people are emo. The third is foreign policy. The fourth is human rights. As the number one country that dominates in world affairs how is this going to reflect on the U.S. as a whole in the above?

The Mexican government should put forth a policy to prevent people from entering the U.S. without proper paperwork or documents to seek jobs. This in turn gives the U.S. government the ability to track who is in the country that are temporary workers. Both governments lack leadership in this matter.

Otherwise the border between Mexico and the U.S. should be closed and have border patrols on every mile 24/7.

Mexico’s Foreign Secretary Patricia Espinoza called the ruling “a first step in the right direction” and said staff at the five Mexican consulates in Arizona will work extra hours in coming weeks to educate migrants about the law.

Define migrant from illegal immigrants. The problem is Mexico is not doing anything to prevent Mexicans from entering the States. Shouldn't Mexico's Foreign Secretary Patricia Espinoza be saying to the Mexicans to go back to Mexico until they have the proper paperwork before entering the States.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

kokorocloud, I think you have put the cart before the horse.

The reason there are these hated roundups of suspected illegal immigrants is the very presence of these illegal immigrants. If there were none, there would be no roundups.

The Mexican government, or since Mexico claims to be a democracy, the Mexican people themselves are to blame. Isn't it ironic that whenever some legal US citizens try to exercise their sovereignty by trying to police their own border, it is the Mexican government which is the first to voice opposition? They worry about the treatment of "their own"?

Corruption in Mexico is the prime reason for all of this.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

if there were not minimum wage laws illegal workers wouldn't be a problem.

What happened to working under the table?

The most efficient means of production is not always the most profitable, the most profitable is the one that matches the consumer demand at equilibrium price in order to sustain economic profit.

Over production is not a sign of an efficient market, if the price falls due over production, a company/market would find a more effective way to use it's resources.

Piglet is right, pure capitalism as followed by libertarians, would allow for free labor markets, anything less is a lessor form of capitalism.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sourpuss-- I agree with you, but that's not how it would work, and I think most of the people against the law, including myself, sense that it would turn into a witch hunt before any real progress would be made. It wouldn't stop anything except make people more distrustful of the law, and people would continue to hide and protect those that would otherwise still have had a chance to become citizens.

I also agree that with how Mexico is now, the situation will only escalate. Corruption breeds more corruption, and that country is in dire need of an overhaul. I can't really blame people for trying to get away from it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

piglet and Good Jorb,

Have to disagree. Being in favor of the free market, doesn't mean you automatically support open borders and unlimited immigration. Far from it. I see no problem supporting the free market, and opposing illegal immigration. I would however support expanded the amount of legal immigration, and making it easier to legally immigrate. Supporting the free market doesn't mean we can't favor controlling the borders, and thats where you're going wrong. Well, unless you're favoring the more libertarian/chaos view where everything is ok.

The good thing about this law, is that it is already having an impact. I read somewhere that its estimated that up to 100k illegals have left Arizona. To me, that is a definite plus. Admittedly, not all of them went back to Mexico, or Canada, or wherever they're from, however that is a sizeable chunk of population that is no longer burdening the taxpayers of Arizona.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What happened to working under the table?

Just because I did it for extra cash doesn't make it any less illegal. Some business owners have morals.

Over production is not a sign of an efficient market, if the price falls due over production, a company/market would find a more effective way to use it's resources.

You said most 'efficient' means of production in the post I was responding to, not effective. The most efficient means of production may very well lead to over production and is not an efficient or effective business model. I think we agree on the principal but are hedging around on the semantics.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Arizona immigration thing has turned more into politics than anything else.

Note to one side - immigration should be a federal issue, not state. And complaining that the federal government isn't doing its job doesn't change that.

Note to the other side - If you are a legal immigrant, you have nothing to worry about. If you are an illegal, you should not be in the counrty. And newsflash, "profiling" is a very useful tool and goes on all the time. It doesn't mean police are going to start raping everyone with dark skin.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Being in favor of the free market, doesn't mean you automatically support open borders and unlimited immigration.

Yes it does, a true free market is entirely free of any Government regulations. Subsidies, tariffs, regulations and government interference all create market inefficiency.

Well, unless you're favoring the more libertarian/chaos view where everything is ok.

Not everything is ok, in free market system the government exists to enforce property rights and contractual agreements between parties.

Admittedly, not all of them went back to Mexico, or Canada, or wherever they're from

Canada? Why would a Canadian ever want to illegally immigrant to the US with 10%+ unemployment? According to stats, 81% of illegals come from Latin American countries, 9% from Asia and 6% from Europe, making a total of 96%, it would highly unlikely that would be any illegal Canada immigrants in Arizona. Statically speaking the odds of an illegal immigrant not being from Latin America are 1/5 and the odds of illegal immigrant maybe being from a first world country are 1/25+(which makes sense). I would imagine given the Arizona is border state that the odds of any illegal immigrant being a non-Latin are statically insignificant.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes it does, a true free market is entirely free of any Government regulations. Subsidies, tariffs, regulations and government interference all create market inefficiency.

Only, such a market only exists in utopia; "free market capitalism" where the marktet is truly free relies on the assumption that people play by the rules. In real life they don't. This fundamentalism has no answer for executives who maximize personal profits at the expense of their company and investors, fraud, collusion, trusts or monopolies. And even if you could somehow get everyone to play along, you still would have no protection from stockmarket crashes and depressions - the boom and bust cycle being a natural part of the free market.

I beleive in capitalism, but I am tired of people who seem to believe that the "Capitalism Fairy" is going to come down and bless the economy with everlasting success just because they cut regulations.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why would a Canadian ever want to illegally immigrant to the US with 10%+ unemployment?

It actually happens all the time near the major ports of entry (The Blue Water and Ambassador Bridges) they don't come to stay, mostly they work white collar jobs with faked work visa's or they hop the boarder to buy stuff in order to avoid customs and immigration. It wouldn't be to far off base to say that about 60% of the business in Port Huron is done by Canadians coming over from Sarnia.

9% from Asia and 6% from Europe,

Most of those illegals come through the Canadian border, higher traffic and less customs agents than there are at the southern border (a problem they are currently trying to rectify by getting more officers and ICE agents). I read in the paper a few months back that a Canadian man was caught trying to smuggle 10 Chinese illegals in the trunk of his car. And when they are caught that way, depending on the circumstances, they may be deported back to Canada even if they aren't Candadian citizens.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I beleive in capitalism, but I am tired of people who seem to believe that the "Capitalism Fairy" is going to come down and bless the economy with everlasting success just because they cut regulations.

I personally I'm not an advocate of fully free markets, but there seems to be a notable amount of hypocrisy amongst the pro-Arizona immigration law people and their complaints of government intrusion, taxation, bailouts and such that are seen as impeding the "free markets". Either you want a fully free market or a mixed market but selective choosing a free market or a mixed market to fit your views of day is hypocritical. Call it a mixed market, call it a semi-regulated market but don't call it a free market, unless you are willing to accept the ramifications of what the free market system entitles.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It appears that President Obama has really framed the discussion in his remarks. The real issue is "states' rights" v. federal control. His point is that if 50 states have immigration policies, no consistent immigration policy would apply, and therefore, it is the federal government responsibility to protect the borders and enforce immigration laws. In other words, should Shizuoka have its own immigration policy, which may be in conflict with Japan's prime minister's statements because the seaports are being overrun by illegal immigrants? States' rights was the main issue of the Civil War, no slavery, not voting rights. Arizona's law is just an example of how citizens demand and expect the federal government to protect its border from INVASION. If the federal government cannot do it, then, according to the U.S. Constitution, it is the right of the state to do it. Just imagine 1000/people a day illegally entering Japan and Tokyo just looking the other way while the prime minister says that something needs to be done about this situation. (However, it may be the solution to the low birthrate issue recently mentioned on Japan.) Today.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites