Arizona Official Threatens to Cut Off Los Angeles Power as Payback for Boycott

[Heracles 417]

You don't understand the UK's immigration system. The vast majority of immigration to the UK is legal - because under EU law, European citizens have the right to travel and work without restriction. We don't really have a significant problem with illegal immigrants and the perception that illegals get more benefits and rights than citizens has more to do with asylum seekers from the Balkans, the Middle-east and African countries who have to be accommodated while their cases go through the system.

The UK can't have a visa system for legal immigrants. We already have a points system for people outside the EU zone.

What has this open-border policy with the EU done to wages for the average skilled blue-collar Britt?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What has this open-border policy with the EU done to wages for the average skilled blue-collar Britt?

The UK is a service sector economy. If you want to find someone to blame for the current state of Britain's manufacturing base (and the wages of the average skilled blue-collar Brit) you can blame the Thatcher, Brown and Blair governments for destroying British industry.

[sjr09 155]

Bingo! The average Joe can only afford walmart now. Hence the companies $408 billion in revenue. Just think of the hundreds of billions that are being sent to foreign countries in the name of buying a sock cheaper than it wold cost to make here. I now avoid that company like the plague.

The irony is that I recently read an article about Hollywood moving a lot of their productions to Mexico.

Like the US chocolate maker Hershey's moving to Mexico, Cutting 1,500 Jobs 10% of its operations out of the US The three-year restructuring plan will save Hershey's US$190 million per year.

Edited May 20, 2010 by sjr09

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Like the US chocolate maker Hershey's moving to Mexico, Cutting 1,500 Jobs 10% of its operations out of the US and cutting 1,500 jobs. The three-year restructuring plan will save Hershey's US$190 million per year.

I doubt it will make their chocolate taste better.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I doubt it will make their chocolate taste better.

Cadbury went to poland....

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well Britain isn't exactly known for it's chocolate. The Swiss, Belgians, French and Germans do it better than we do.

[Darnell 8,478]

"Doggone it -- if you're going to boycott this candy store ... then don't come in for any of it," Pierce told FoxNews.com.

Excellent News - hope they turn it off !

[Heracles 417]

The UK is a service sector economy. If you want to find someone to blame for the current state of Britain's manufacturing base (and the wages of the average skilled blue-collar Brit) you can blame the Thatcher, Brown and Blair governments for destroying British industry.

I am not talking about manufacturing, I am talking about blue-collar workers that cannot be exported.

It says something that even with all of the benefits provided and the tax collect, the UK ranks worse than the US in various studies.

Well Britain isn't exactly known for it's chocolate. The Swiss, Belgians, French and Germans do it better than we do.

You have to admit, Cadbury manufactured in AUS tastes better.

[Darnell 8,478]

The irony is that I recently read an article about Hollywood moving a lot of their productions to Mexico.

Moving it from Canada ? What ? Canada production much cheaper than in California, they've been there' for about 12 years now.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I am not talking about manufacturing, I am talking about blue-collar workers that cannot be exported.

It says something that even with all of the benefits provided and the tax collect, the UK ranks worse than the US in various studies.

The immigrants are here legally. It is not a problem that the government can fix - not without withdrawing Britain from the EU, which none of the political parties is going to do.

have to admit, Cadbury manufactured in AUS tastes better.

Tastes better than Belgian or Swiss Chocolate? No way...

[Heracles 417]

Tastes better than Belgian or Swiss Chocolate? No way...

No, their chocolate is better but you do notice a difference between UK and AUS cadbury. The worst of them is the hersey made Cadbury. I couldn't feed herseys chocolate to the dogs or pigs in AUS. Talk about a ###### azz chocolate. It's quite amazing that the US has such crappy chocolates and candy when compared to Europe or AUS considering how overweight people are.

Moving it from Canada ? What ? Canada production much cheaper than in California, they've been there' for about 12 years now.

Canada's weather is hardly idea for outdoor movies.

[sjr09 155]

No, their chocolate is better but you do notice a difference between UK and AUS cadbury. The worst of them is the hersey made Cadbury. I couldn't feed herseys chocolate to the dogs or pigs in AUS. Talk about a ###### azz chocolate. It's quite amazing that the US has such crappy chocolates and candy when compared to Europe or AUS considering how overweight people are.

Canada's weather is hardly idea for outdoor movies.

Now days with Computer-generated imagery who needs good weather.

[Pooky 3,784]

I find it funny how these threads make it so many pages. I think the major point that people here are missing is the endgame of this bill, which is enforcement of federal immigration law. The state of Arizona has no jurisdiction to enforce those laws. At best, they can clog up their jails with suspected illegal immigrants and ask ICE to come and deport them. If ICE declines, which they frequently do, except in cases of severe crimes committed, then Arizona is just going to fill up it's jails and cost taxpayers even more money.

That's not exactly true.

Memo from 2002 could complicate challenge of Arizona immigration law

By Jerry Markon

Washington Post Staff Writer

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

In the legal battle over Arizona's new immigration law, an ironic subtext has emerged: whether a Bush-era legal opinion complicates a potential Obama administration lawsuit against Arizona.

The document, written in 2002 by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, concluded that state police officers have "inherent power" to arrest undocumented immigrants for violating federal law. It was issued by Jay S. Bybee, who also helped write controversial memos from the same era that sanctioned harsh interrogation of terrorism suspects.

The author of the Arizona law -- which has drawn strong opposition from top Obama administration officials -- has cited the authority granted in the 2002 memo as a basis for the legislation. The Obama administration has not withdrawn the memo, and some backers of the Arizona law said Monday that because it remains in place, a Justice Department lawsuit against Arizona would be awkward at best.

"The Justice Department's official position as of now is that local law enforcement has the inherent authority to enforce federal immigration law," said Robert Driscoll, a former Justice Department Civil Rights Division official in the George W. Bush administration who represents an Arizona sheriff known for aggressive immigration enforcement. "How can you blame someone for exercising authority that the department says they have?"

The Arizona law, signed by Gov. Jan Brewer ® last month, makes the "willful failure" to carry immigration documents a crime and empowers police to question anyone if authorities have a "reasonable suspicion" the person is an illegal immigrant. It has drawn words of condemnation from President Obama and intense opposition from civil rights groups, who on Monday filed what they said was the fifth federal lawsuit over the legislation.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has said the department is considering a lawsuit against Arizona, and Civil Rights Division lawyers have been studying the law and consulting with some civil rights groups.

"The Civil Rights Division has been working around the clock," said one outside lawyer who has spoken to Justice Department officials. The lawyer spoke on the condition of anonymity because the contacts are not public. "They have a lot of attorneys on it, and they're taking a really hard look at filing their own lawsuit or intervening." Justice Department officials declined to comment Monday beyond saying they are continuing to review the government's legal options.

The 2002 opinion, known as the "inherent authority" memo, reversed a 1996 Office of Legal Counsel opinion from the Clinton administration. "This Office's 1996 advice that federal law precludes state police from arresting aliens on the basis of civil deportability was mistaken," says the 2002 memo, which was released publicly in redacted form in 2005 after civil rights groups sued to obtain it.

Office of Legal Counsel documents do not have the force of law but carry great weight within the executive branch and are considered to be the Justice Department's official position on a legal or constitutional issue.

Cecillia Wang, managing attorney of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project -- which filed Monday's lawsuit in federal court in Phoenix along with the NAACP, the National Immigration Law Center and other groups -- said the 2002 memo would not present an obstacle to a Justice Department lawsuit. She said the power that the Arizona law gives to police "goes far beyond" the basic arrest authority cited in the memo.

But Wang renewed the ACLU's call for the Obama Justice Department to withdraw the 2002 memo, which she called legally incorrect. "The fact that this memo is lurking out there gives cover and comfort to people in Arizona and other states who want to pass these overbroad and extraordinary anti-immigration measures," she said.

Washington Post Article

Seems like the ACLU is more than a little concerned about this little wrinkle.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

That's not exactly true.

It was issued by Jay S. Bybee, who also helped write controversial memos from the same era that sanctioned harsh interrogation of terrorism suspects.

The author of the Arizona law -- which has drawn strong opposition from top Obama administration officials -- has cited the authority granted in the 2002 memo as a basis for the legislation. The Obama administration has not withdrawn the memo, and some backers of the Arizona law said Monday that because it remains in place, a Justice Department lawsuit against Arizona would be awkward at best.

First of all, the Obama Administration is not bound by the legal opinion of the previous administration as was the issue over sanctioned torturing of terrorist suspects. Secondly, no memo from the Justice Dept., whether from this administration or one from the past can trump the 14th Amendment or any other constitutional provision that SB1070 violates.

[Pooky 3,784]

First of all, the Obama Administration is not bound by the legal opinion of the previous administration as was the issue over sanctioned torturing of terrorist suspects. Secondly, no memo from the Justice Dept., whether from this administration or one from the past can trump the 14th Amendment or any other constitutional provision that SB1070 violates.

Funny, that's not what the ACLU thinks. For starters, the memo is not in itself a binding document, even on the administration under which it was drafted. But the current administration has to officially withdraw the memo for it not to serve as the official opinion of and act as guidance for the justice department. That they haven't already done so means either this legal opinion has good standing in law and upholds the Constitution (I don't know) and/or that Eric Holder is a bumbling fool (no question about that).

And then there's the matter that it is only your opinion that SB1070 violates the 14th Amendment. It is not fact. Granted, there are plenty of people out there who are of a similar opinion. However, there are also plenty who disagree with your opinion. If any of the proposed legal challenges goes ahead, we might finally find out for certain.

Until then, it remains just your opinion.

Mind you, if the Federal government stepped up to the plate and started enforcing the laws that SB1070 allows local law enforcement to enforce, this would be a moot point. It would also be enormously popular with the American electorate. Whereas the prospective challenges to SB 1070 and the proposed immigration amnesty are most certainly not.