Lalo Alcaraz for July 27, 2010

Illegals in Florida (from Cuba) get automatic protection, funding, and jobs.

All living creatures are significate…. and to harm a living creature has severe consequences….

A feud (pronounced /ˈfjuːd/) (referred to in more extreme cases as a blood feud or vendetta or faida) is a long-running argument or fight between parties—often, through association fallacy, groups of people, especially families or clans. Feuds begin because one party (correctly or incorrectly) perceives itself to have been attacked, insulted or wronged by another. Intense feelings of resentment trigger the initial revenge, which causes the other party to feel equally aggrieved and vengeful. The dispute is subsequently fuelled by a long-running cycle of retaliatory violence. This continual cycle of provocation and retaliation makes it extremely difficult to end the feud peacefully. Feuds frequently involve the original parties’ family members and/or associates, can last for generations and may result in extreme acts of violence.

No, Arizona ignored the Constitution, and that is the issue. Decades of NOT enforcing the law isn’t just Obama’s fault.

If you think tolerating bigotry instead of squashing it makes liberals stupid… you might have a point.

So predictable that Puppy and ANandy hate the Constitution.

If only we were a christian theocracy, they’d be happy…

Jade has a point…

On the other hand, Lalo has been doing cartoons about this subject for weeks.

@Anthony 2816: No, they wouldn’t. It’d probably be the wrong brand of Christianity.

Don’t forget, you gotchur “Western” Church, and the “Eastern” Church, who can’t even agree on when to celebrate Easter and Christmas.

Then, among the Western Church, there are “Protestants” and “Catholics” (I think you can guess how well they get along in a “two-church town”).

Among the Protestants, there are so many permutations, combinations, and variations of “charismatic,” “fundamentalist,” “pentecostal,” “evangelical,” “liberal,” “conservative,” “orthodox,” and a host of “non-denominational” sects, it makes a comprehensive list of them all make a dictionary look like a pamphlet in comparison.

I don’t think they’d have a problem with a Ted Nugent-based theocracy, though.

^ I dunno, those bailouts were Bush’s deal.

All you lovely people who HATE our current President need to get a life.

The debt is a little over 13 Trillion- 12 of that came from Reagan, Bush 41 (who DID raise taxes, or it would have been much worse), a small increase under Clinton who was leveling it off, and then “W” 43 doubled it again! Guess what? Immigration didn’t cause the debt increase.

BUSH bailed out the companies and the banks- it falls under laws the Congress passed, and within the authority of the Administrative Branch– it wasn’t pleasant, but it wasn’t “unconstitutional”.

We need a handle on our immigration problems, legal AND illegal, but nothing done under the Bush administrations really did anything useful.

you know we gritch about outsourcing

we gritch about illegals taking our jobs

we gritch about deporting illegals

we gritch about taxing outsourcing

we gritch about profiling

we gritch about not profiling

we gritch gritch gritch

what do we really want to stand behind

^I’m gonna go work for theCheddarMan; pretty soon puppy-generated spam will be all over this website…

gritching sounds painful…about as painful as seeing ads for Christian Dior’s Speedos plastered all over this web-site…Armani Bags coming soon, suckers…Discount priced…

Arizona has not “ignored the constitution”….I’ve heard legal eagles say that court cases have upheld states enforcing federal laws….in fact, if states didn’t enforce federal laws we would have anarchy, not a “united states Rule of Law nation”….

The Arizona law is almost word for word a copy of the oldest federal immigration law.

The Arizona law FORBIDS RACIAL PROFILING.

What is going on here is the Democrat Party members making ILLEGAL to be LEGAL…..protected from the producing of ID like all the rest of us must do constantly in order to conduct our business.

ARROGANCE AND AUDACITY at work! Thanks voters and Thanks Obama.

Disgusted, the general idea here is that when an area of federal law conflicts with an area of state law, the federal law takes precedence.

Foreign policy is definitely a federal issue.

You seem to be having trouble with the concept….even with your use of capital letters.

like, we don’t have a black eye for anything else ?

i’m right, you’re wrong NEVER solved anything.

if we were TOGETHER in this and everything else none of this c–p would happen, but it seems that disagreeing/fighting is the ONLY way you agree.

keep it up and nothing will change - GUARANTEED !

anthony….if you would spend more time checking facts than you do lecturing posters like myself, you might learn the truth that the Arizona new law DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH FEDERAL LAW. It in fact copies closely the original hundred-year-old immigration law that makes it a federal CRIME to come into the USA illegally.

Since when are states “prohibited” from helping enforce federal laws????????? and for Alcaraz’ newest cartoon, since when are citizens not supposed to report “crime” to law authorities? ILLEGAL ENTRY IS A FEDERAL CRIME.

I use caps to stress my pertinent points. If that offends you, quit reading my comments.

this is a good information article = http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/70153 concerning the Drug Cartel WAR on the US-Mexico border. the GAO 7/22/10 issued a report based on several gov. reports that include DOJ’s National Drug Intel Center’s 2008 assessment that “hundreds of undocumented aliens from (terrorist nations) illegally cross into the USA annually” and “assualts, kidnappings and hostage situations attributed to this conflict are increasing, particularly in Tucson and Phonenix, Arizona…” (no community is safe with this ongoing illegal activity that neither Bush nor Obama cares about enough to go all-out to stop it)

Arizona and any state has a constitutional right to pass and enforce laws that are in agreement with federal law! Arizona and all out border states have a duty to citizens to pass and enforce copy-cat laws of the Feds who are not enforcing Fed Law.

apparently the Clinton-appointed judge who ruled in favor of hindering Arizona state government, is suffering from the same political correctness insanity as the Obama administration. But Arizona will appeal and surely when it reaches the USSC, God will bless America with at least 5 good sense Justices’ ruling on this case.

Disgusted, which federal law requires all immigrants to carry their papers with them at all times?

Which federal law requires police officers to check those papers on every suspect?

According to you, these federal laws must exist, since the Arizona law requiring this DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH FEDERAL LAW, right?

The ‘toon: “That’s what the kids are wearing these days…”

77- during Clinton the DEBT rose 24%. Under Reagan/41, it went up over 400%, then “W” and Cheney doubled what they “inherited”. btw 41’s increase was the highest.

SB1070 as originally written did NOT prohibit discrimination,it actually ENCOURAGED “profiling”, the Arizona legislature wrote an amendment, which still didn’t solve all the problems with the law as regards Constitutional conflict.

Something around 17 states are writing “similar” laws- if they try to let states control foreign affairs or “immigration”– they all fail on Constitutional grounds, period. Maybe we should let Arizona declare war on Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran, and send all, and ONLY, their citizens off to fight terrorism???

Thanks, Church.

When I wrote that, I was thinking of naturalization papers, which don’t have to be carried around…I hope.

You know what I like about immigrants in any country from any country?

We, “natives”, think we are so patriotic? Immigrants are the only ones who can say they choosed it this country.

Doesn’t mean illegal immigration is okay, but think about it.

^^ Bruce, yeah, I show my driver’s license a lot. But the only time I’ve ever had to show my naturalization certificate was when I originally applied for my medical license. I don’t ever recall having to show it when I joined the Navy, which was odd, given that joining the Navy was the main reason I got it.

I’ve fortunately never been in the position of having to show it to avoid being deported.

But then, (1) I don’t look like a Mexican, and (2) I rarely go to Arizona.

Disgusted = Stryper?

CORROSIVE FROG - you’re right, they chose the country to which they came.

SENORBULL - such an angry posting…

So what happens if a Mexican-looking naturalized citizen is stopped for jay-walking, and doesn’t have any identification with him? Sits in jail until some friend or family member brings in the proof?

Would the same thing happen to me (i.e. a non-Mexican-looking)?

Decent analysis of the judge’s decision here:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/07/30/hethmon.arizona.ruling/index.html?eref=mrssigooglecnn

Shows what she actually wrote, rather than the Faux News version.

Lady Liberty needs a do-over! It’s time to hip up those hips, Sister!

Just come out of re-hab, Bullish?

P.S. Lady Liberty has been wearing the same gown for about 110 years, doofus.*

*Term as applied borrowed from Dr.Canuck

Bruce; And people who don’t have their dirvers licenses???

Puppy, if you want to immitate Canuck, immitate canadian politeness and random “Sorry” s, too.

Sooky Rottweiler says; Puppy! My humans went for fried chicken and brought me some leftovers! You want some? I want an excuse not to give it to Mittaines!

I’m in Canada. I have my Medicare card and my social insurance number…I don’t have my driver’s license.

You need a birth certificate.

^Lame. If that’s the best he can do - why do we assume he is a “Doc”?

“Heeeeeeeeey, what’s up, Doc?”

Oregon also requires proof of citizenship for a driver’s license or renewal. Soon all states will be the same. It isn’t a matter of showing ID, but the “excuse” used to demand showing proof of citizenship.

Speaking of “enforcement”- Lindsey Lohan has been released after 13 days of a 90 day sentence due to “jail overcrowding”. If folks won’t pay taxes to lock up even the super-wealthy, how DO we “enforce” the law and mete punishment for folks who’ve REPEATEDLY VIOLATED the law and court orders????

You don’t need a PhD to say what Doc said, but it still makes sense.

“since Congress has to approve and fund the war effort it is legal”

That’s awkward. Bush W showed that the definition of “war” has been changed to the point that the approval of Congress is a moot point.

The Executive can now send our troops anywhere, for whatever purpose, and anyone who doesn’t approve, including Congress, will be branded a traitor.

^Your war did not get the approbation of the UN.

Since you didn’t listen to the UN, why should other, “rogue” countries listen to it?

<=======^For reference see my doctrine.